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

[Oystein]

Jay,

ultimately, we are talking about a historic event. That is, a one-off event that happened once in the past, just like any other historic event is a one-off that happened only once.

Out of the myriad of possible events, when time t comes and goes, exactly one will happen at place p, no matter how probable or improbable it may have been ex-ante.

Looking back, all we can do is piece together observation to form a narrative.

As a general rule, theories about historic events are not testable.


So, I wonder: What SHOULD a testable theory about the historic event "WTC7 collapse" look like? By what criteria do you judge that the theory is testable?

You could give us an example by formulating a theory about that very collapse such that it is testable. Note: It would be quite okay for your theory to be wrong; you can make up anything you like, all I require that it be testable in a manner similar to what a testable NIST theory ought to be.
For you don't question that NIST has a theory, right? You agree that NIST has a theory, your complaint is just that it isn't testable, correct?


I note, by the way, that there is also no testable competing theory coming from truthers! I allege that there isn't even a theory at all that comes close being comparable in detail and concreteness to NIST's, let alone a testable one.

 

[Jango]

How about the fact that there is no testable theory proposed by the official sources? That doesn't seem to bother anyone on a skeptic site. Weird.

I appreciate Oystein's agnosticism towards this question, btw.

This question was my starting point. I wasn't a doubter of the official conspiracy theory until I tried to find out what the official theory was. As it turns out, there are a couple of anecdotal explanations of why the WTC towers fell. Upon further inspection, the mechanisms appealed to in these versions are never given a real set of criteria by which they could be tested.

I thought there must be a mistake, or the theory they tested is located somewhere else in the documents. Nope. The harder I dug, the more I was convinced that there was no testable official theory. It's just armchair hypothesizing.

Now, I realize some of you will immediately, and without much thought, (I'm talking about you, beechnut), jump in to reply to this with some garbled, run-on sentence that conveys little more than a grunt of disapproval. But the fact remains: nowhere in the 10,000+ pages of the NIST report will you find a testable theory about the collapse of the WTC towers.

The closest they come is in the finite element analysis where they run some simulations on floor-wall joints and find they need steel temps of 700C for 30 minutes--steel temps, not air temps. Officially, conditions did not exist in the towers for the steel itself to get to 700C for 30 minutes. But even if they did, we know through the UL truss tests that the steel was not nearly as maleable in real life as it was in the simulations.

But here I am on a site devoted to skepticism (which apparently, the Amazing Randy wants nothing to do with anymore), in which the members defend the initial hypothesis and all versions of the OCT, yet are unmoved by the fact that there is no testable theory involved.
This is what gets me: scientific investigation has allowed us to decipher the number of planets revolving around a star hundreds of light years away using complex Fourier analysis and sensitive radio analysis. Murders have been solved from tens, even hundreds of years later. Destroyed airplanes are dredged up from the ocean floor and examined to ascertain the cause of failure. No one says "just take our word for it, that's what happened." There is real science done to determine the causes.

Nothing supernatural happened on 9/11/01. The laws of physics were not superceded. Yet, we have no testable theory.

So yes, the official version is questionable, if you are looking for answers.

I'm glad I am not the only one to notice that.

 

[Mark6]

Pretty much what Oysten said. Historic events are simply not testable.

There is no such thing as Berlin Wall. Assuming a hypothesis that it once existed and was torn down, what kind of testable theory would you propose to test that hypothesis?

 

[NoahFence]

How about the fact that there is no testable theory proposed by the official sources? That doesn't seem to bother anyone on a skeptic site. Weird.

Testing was done that day. Can a massive aircraft slamming into the side of a 110 story building cause that building to collapse? Yes.

But how can you possibly confirm that? There was a second building that collapsed.

Can a 47 story building survive being struck and severely damaged by one of the aforementioned 110 story buildings? It would seem so.
Can the same severely damaged building then survive having fires set simultaneously on several floors, and left to burn unchecked for roughly 7 hours?
It appears not.

All theories were tested that day. We got our answers before the sun set on 9/11/01. What's taking you so long?

This question was my starting point. I wasn't a doubter of the official conspiracy theory until I tried to find out what the official theory was. As it turns out, there are a couple of anecdotal explanations of why the WTC towers fell. Upon further inspection, the mechanisms appealed to in these versions are never given a real set of criteria by which they could be tested.

There are no "official" theories. Nor do there need to be. The events in NYC were part of a larger event. Maybe you didn't hear, but the Pentagon was hit too, and a 4th plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Doubtless headed for the White House or the Capitol building. Put it all together with the brainpower of a salamander and it's pretty obvious what happened to the towers.

I thought there must be a mistake, or the theory they tested is located somewhere else in the documents. Nope. The harder I dug, the more I was convinced that there was no testable official theory. It's just armchair hypothesizing.

No, it's making recomendations to the industry. The NIST report was not created to placate conspiracy theorists. Sorry dude.

Now, I realize some of you will immediately, and without much thought, (I'm talking about you, beechnut), jump in to reply to this with some garbled, run-on sentence that conveys little more than a grunt of disapproval. But the fact remains: nowhere in the 10,000+ pages of the NIST report will you find a testable theory about the collapse of the WTC towers.

Since I'm sure you're aware that they modeled the collapses, I'm left to wonder what it is you're willing to call a "testable theory".

The closest they come is in the finite element analysis where they run some simulations on floor-wall joints and find they need steel temps of 700C for 30 minutes--steel temps, not air temps. Officially, conditions did not exist in the towers for the steel itself to get to 700C for 30 minutes. But even if they did, we know through the UL truss tests that the steel was not nearly as maleable in real life as it was in the simulations.

How long did those fires last again? You need to review the footage with stopwatch I think. Also - how could you know that they found the steel had to be subjected to such conditions without them providing the aforementioned testable theory?

But here I am on a site devoted to skepticism (which apparently, the Amazing Randy wants nothing to do with anymore), in which the members defend the initial hypothesis and all versions of the OCT, yet are unmoved by the fact that there is no testable theory involved.

There IS NO OCT.

There is only reality. You're welcome to join us.

This is what gets me: scientific investigation has allowed us to decipher the number of planets revolving around a star hundreds of light years away using complex Fourier analysis and sensitive radio analysis. Murders have been solved from tens, even hundreds of years later. Destroyed airplanes are dredged up from the ocean floor and examined to ascertain the cause of failure. No one says "just take our word for it, that's what happened." There is real science done to determine the causes.

Nothing supernatural happened on 9/11/01. The laws of physics were not superceded. Yet, we have no testable theory.

So yes, the official version is questionable, if you are looking for answers.

That looks strikingly familiar to a description of a posting style I saw a while ago. What was that again?

Now, I realize some of you will immediately, and without much thought, (I'm talking about you, beechnut), jump in to reply to this with some garbled, run-on sentence that conveys little more than a grunt of disapproval.

You're 100% right. Nothing supernatural happened. Something unprecedented happened for sure. If this was some sort of inside job, how is the ENTIRE day connected?

Not ONE of you people have even hinted at a testable theory that can account for the entire day's events. It's 2015. What the : is taking you so long?

You want to be spoon-fed a testable theory that conforms only to your specifications, you want to ignore all theories that have already been put forth, and all to determine inside jobby-job on one unoccupied building where noone died. Why are you thinking so small?

What's your theory on the entire day?

 

[beachnut]

How about the fact that there is no testable theory proposed by the official sources? That doesn't seem to bother anyone on a skeptic site. Weird.

I appreciate Oystein's agnosticism towards this question, btw.

This question was my starting point. I wasn't a doubter of the official conspiracy theory until I tried to find out what the official theory was. As it turns out, there are a couple of anecdotal explanations of why the WTC towers fell. Upon further inspection, the mechanisms appealed to in these versions are never given a real set of criteria by which they could be tested.

I thought there must be a mistake, or the theory they tested is located somewhere else in the documents. Nope. The harder I dug, the more I was convinced that there was no testable official theory. It's just armchair hypothesizing.

Now, I realize some of you will immediately, and without much thought, (I'm talking about you, beechnut), jump in to reply to this with some garbled, run-on sentence that conveys little more than a grunt of disapproval. But the fact remains: nowhere in the 10,000+ pages of the NIST report will you find a testable theory about the collapse of the WTC towers.

The closest they come is in the finite element analysis where they run some simulations on floor-wall joints and find they need steel temps of 700C for 30 minutes--steel temps, not air temps. Officially, conditions did not exist in the towers for the steel itself to get to 700C for 30 minutes. But even if they did, we know through the UL truss tests that the steel was not nearly as maleable in real life as it was in the simulations.

But here I am on a site devoted to skepticism (which apparently, the Amazing Randy wants nothing to do with anymore), in which the members defend the initial hypothesis and all versions of the OCT, yet are unmoved by the fact that there is no testable theory involved.

This is what gets me: scientific investigation has allowed us to decipher the number of planets revolving around a star hundreds of light years away using complex Fourier analysis and sensitive radio analysis. Murders have been solved from tens, even hundreds of years later. Destroyed airplanes are dredged up from the ocean floor and examined to ascertain the cause of failure. No one says "just take our word for it, that's what happened." There is real science done to determine the causes.

Nothing supernatural happened on 9/11/01. The laws of physics were not superceded. Yet, we have no testable theory.

So yes, the official version is questionable, if you are looking for answers.

You don't understand fire, steel and engineering. This lack of knowledge in fire, steel and engineering creates your inability to understand 911. What is questionable, your ability to make rational conclusion, you can't figure out 911 after 13 years; you have no evidence for the anything questionable when 19 terrorists did 911, not your silent explosives and insane thermite plots of woo. Gee, you can't present your story on 911, and you can't do engineering, and you lie, there is testable theory, you don't do science.

The Randi.org stuff shows how narrow your attack is, another failed weak attack.

You again prove you have no background in science, and are fooled by liars in 911 truth.

Yes, take your BS and go to a newspaper; go ahead. Earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate, Nixon resigned... you have all this overwhelming evidence, and super analysis to show 911 was an inside job by people you can name, and you got the story and evidence all over the place... darn, you don't have anything but big talk, and silly stuff about Randi.org you made up, lie your inside job you can't explain.

Where is your Pulitzer? Right, all you have is talk.

Any lay person can use their head to figure out ways to test NIST, you can't and you fell for BS from a movement based on lies and old men who have left you holding the bag of BS. Where is Jones? Gage makes over 500,000 dollars a year, and here you are repeating his BS catechism for free.

13 years of solid failure, and no Pulitzer, only lies and fantasy, which your post proves. Hope you did not laugh at the geeks in your school, they figured out 911, the ones taking higher math, physics, chemistry, and then went to engineering school. However, cause and effect was taught in first grade, as such any layperson has the tools to understand 911 - why can't you?

Who planted your silent explosives? Exactly, you can't explain you story, you can't do the science to save your BS claims. And you can't help but mention NIST, and I don't need NIST, fire did it, I have known since 911.

 

[jay howard]

Jay,

ultimately, we are talking about a historic event. That is, a one-off event that happened once in the past, just like any other historic event is a one-off that happened only once.

Like a plane crash over the ocean, or a pile of bones in a cave, or some emission of gamma rays from a location in space, or a conspiracy to assassinate a world leader, or a massive financial fraud perpetrated against the have-nots, or like the vast majority of events that have ever happened: they only happen once. You can only step in the "same" river once, so to speak.

But that doesn't mean we should give up on formulating a testable theory about what could explain these phenomena. You sound as if you walk through life without making any attempt to predict what will happen next--as if you're happy to accept whatever happens. Simply not true.

Do you believe that groceries come from the Magic Food Bunny? No, you formulated a theory about groceries a long time ago. And you've tested that theory to your satisfaction. We have pretty good evidence that the food in the supermarket was shipped there from other places. You have reasons to believe the things you do about supermarkets, but you don't have reasons to believe the things you do about the WTC collapses.

Out of the myriad of possible events, when time t comes and goes, exactly one will happen at place p, no matter how probable or improbable it may have been ex-ante.

Looking back, all we can do is piece together observation to form a narrative.

That's all we EVER do. When do we have more than this? This is the starting point of geneticists, engineers, theoretical physicists, forensic investigators, and everyone who ever existed. Not a helpful delineation.

As a general rule, theories about historic events are not testable.

This is some ridiculous nonsense here. All events are "historic" if they happened in the past. Which is to say, everything we can talk about or experience. Or "everything" for short.

So, you're saying "as a general rule, theories about anything are not testable." Or, "nothing is testable." Now, of course you don't agree with this, but your only defense is to say that by "historic" you mean "noteworthy." But this does you no good, because the significance (or insignificance) of an event makes little difference to one's ability to make a theory about it.

In other words, I'm calling ******** on your "general rule." Theories can and are made about all kinds of things all the time. We have a theory that if steam is coming off our drink, we should drink it slowly. If clouds are coming in, maybe we should bring an umbrella. Any prediction we make is the result of a theory about a situation.

And you introduce this absolutely worthless idea that "historic events are not testable" because you acknowledge that there is no testable theory in the NIST report--not because you really believe that.

So, I wonder: What SHOULD a testable theory about the historic event "WTC7 collapse" look like? By what criteria do you judge that the theory is testable?

You could give us an example by formulating a theory about that very collapse such that it is testable. Note: It would be quite okay for your theory to be wrong; you can make up anything you like, all I require that it be testable in a manner similar to what a testable NIST theory ought to be.
For you don't question that NIST has a theory, right? You agree that NIST has a theory, your complaint is just that it isn't testable, correct?

Sure. "The steel rivets that connected plate G with plate B had to undergo a minimum of L load at K temp for T time in order to fail."

No such sentence exists anywhere in the report.

I note, by the way, that there is also no testable competing theory coming from truthers! I allege that there isn't even a theory at all that comes close being comparable in detail and concreteness to NIST's, let alone a testable one.

Interestingly, the OCT starts with the conclusion and inserts evidence to support that theory from the total body of evidence. The "truthers" have pointed this out to much grunting and emoting from the apologists.

Compare this to Jones' approach: he starts by saying "these iron microspheres are suspicious." (This is before anyone said a goddamned word about metal spheres.) Then they find the red-gray chips. Then they test the spheres, the chips and the by-products of the chips. The final theory they come to is that this stuff is active, thermitic and it explains a lot of phenomena that the OCT cannot.

You and many other "skeptics" appear to favor the conclusion-first, no-testable-theory approach. I prefer the gather-evidence and produce a coherent theory approach.

 

[jay howard]

Pretty much what Oysten said. Historic events are simply not testable.

There is no such thing as Berlin Wall. Assuming a hypothesis that it once existed and was torn down, what kind of testable theory would you propose to test that hypothesis?

You either do not understand the statement, or you are not able to make predictions about your environment. I'm going with option 1.

 

[beachnut]

... in which the members defend the initial hypothesis and all versions of the OCT, yet are unmoved by the fact that there is no testable theory involved. ...

I'm glad I am not the only one to notice that.

Noticed what, are you going to do some engineering to help? No.

What testable theory is there? 19 terrorists did 911, it is fact, not theory.
Fire destroyed the WTC complex, it is fact no theory. 911 truth makes up BS claims like this, and peddles them - Gage is the winner, he lives off lies from 911 truth, making 500,000 dollars a year, while you admit you are wasting your time posting on the Internet. Your new tag line, wasting time. You have no evidence for your BS claims on 911, the same as Jay Howard. You both share a lack of knowledge, a knowledge any layperson can gain, and you both expose an extremely shallow research, as in zero research; instead you use your opinions to state silly conclusions, lies and fantasy. Jay can't explain what caused the WTC complex collapses, and it was fire. He has to bring up NIST because he can't do engineering, fire science, and more. He can't do physics to see the WTC towers collapse speed is what a gravity collapse would be based on the structural failure. A simple model, a testable theory he can't do, so he lies about 911, some bad guys did 911, he can't name them, he can't explain his story. So he goes on a Quixotic quest of woo, attacking NIST by BS methods which rest on BS. Nothing presented by 911 truth rises up to the level of basic engineering and science; all failed on face value, but you guys are not armed with the skills to see 911 truth is BS; instead you post so much political claptrap, I thought I made a mistake ans woke up in the Political Forum - go put your BS politics to work over yonder.

I would edit this, but for you this is all a waste of time, so I will build another extreme computer, 6 cores are needed to keep up with my typing speed.

 

[Oystein]

Jay, you have your scientific epistemology wrong.

"Testable" theories are those that apply to future events: "If in the future premises A, B, C hold true, then D will happen" is a testable hypothesis IF you can actually arrange for A, B and C to hold true in the very near future, or "now". If D does then not happen, the theory is falsified.
This is not possible for a one-off past event. Take for example this: "The steel rivets that connected plate G with plate B had to undergo a minimum of L load at K temp for T time in order to fail". Assuming this applies to an actual building that collapsed 13.5 years ago, how would you go about actually testing it? You may have noticed that plate G and plate B do no longer exist and thus cannot be made to undergo a minimum of L load at K temp for T time.

NIST did something in lieu: They re-constructed plate G and plate B in a computer model, along with thousands of other plates, beams, studs, bolts, columns, slabs, seats and what have you, had them undergo L load at K temp for T time, and the computer simulation reported back that this will result in progressive and complete collapse. Now you may question whether this is a scientifically valid method. If so, be happy: The NIST team submitted their method in the form of a science paper to one of the best science journals in the relevant field: The Journal of Structural Engineering, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (a non-government organization) where it underwent and passed proper peer-review. The JoSE is consistently ranked among the ten best out of hundreds of engineering journals - contrast this with the Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham Publishes, which was not even ranked at all among hundreds of competing journals - this is worse than bad.


By the way: "Groceries come from the Magic Food Bunny" is a proper testable theory (provided we construe it as implying "always") because it applies to future events. I can easily devise a test where I observe where all the groceries originate that come to my home, say, next week. If observation shows that groceries do come from Magic Food Bunny not even in one instance, the theory would be falsified.

If however you had a theory that "groceries came from the Magic Food Bunny" on 9/11/2001, that theory might not be testable! None of those groceries are around today, and so I am not sure how I could test this. I can dig into my records and there's even a slight chance that on an old computer I still have purchase records; and a historian worth his salt could investigate what the world was like in 2001 and figure out that no good evidence exists for the existance of a Magic Food Bunny - but that is largely a matter of luck.



(Your description of the "OCT" is wrong in several regards, but I have little interest in opening that can of worms. Got another thread to attend to...)

 

[beachnut]

You either do not understand the statement, or you are not able to make predictions about your environment. I'm going with option 1.

Wait, you don't understand science, wrong on both counts. Unable to do simple engineering, or any science, you make up the tag line, or plagiarized the tag line of "no-testable-theory", it keeps you from having to do engineering, since you claim, "no-testable-theory". And you offer no theory, nothing but BS, and a fixation on NIST.

19 terrorists did 911, it is not a theory, it is a fact. Fire destroyed the WTC complex, as seen on 911, it is not theory, it is fact.

Leslie Robertson built the WTC structure, and it fell as he expected due to the damage and fires; he knows steel fails in fire quickly, you don't have any idea what steel does as you ask endless questions trying to back in silent explosives and a plot so silly you can't present it. You can't refute Robertson, he is an engineer who built the WTC, you will have to call him a liar - he says fire did it. darn, you were so close, 13 years...

There are are no anomalies on 911, only ignorance.

 

[NoahFence]

In other words, I'm calling ******** on your "general rule." Theories can and are made about all kinds of things all the time. We have a theory that if steam is coming off our drink, we should drink it slowly. If clouds are coming in, maybe we should bring an umbrella. Any prediction we make is the result of a theory about a situation.

You don't know what 'theory' means.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

You and many other "skeptics" appear to favor the conclusion-first, no-testable-theory approach.

No, you're describing conspiracy theorists.

That's what they do.

I prefer the gather-evidence and produce a coherent theory approach.

If this is truly your preference, the chances are high that you'll end up leaving the 9/11 Truth movement.

 

[jay howard]

Testing was done that day. Can a massive aircraft slamming into the side of a 110 story building cause that building to collapse? Yes.

But how can you possibly confirm that? There was a second building that collapsed.

Can a 47 story building survive being struck and severely damaged by one of the aforementioned 110 story buildings? It would seem so.
Can the same severely damaged building then survive having fires set simultaneously on several floors, and left to burn unchecked for roughly 7 hours?
It appears not.

All theories were tested that day. We got our answers before the sun set on 9/11/01. What's taking you so long?

My problem with this set of theories, (aside from the fact that I've got to take you to primary school and define basic science terms), is that these theories must ignore as "insignificant or unreal" a lot of bodies of evidence in order to hold any water.

Unlike an honest attempt at theory formulation, there was no attempt to falsify the OCT. That is, if my theory says "tomatoes are poisonous," I would employ some way to discover and analyze the contents of a tomato and look for poison. Likewise, if I think all the molten metal was aluminium, I would melt some Al and see if it looks like what I saw.

There are no "official" theories. Nor do there need to be.

Ok. Another apologist who will not apologize for not having a testable theory. Back when the microsphere debate had begun, and before Jones published anything about them, everyone on JREF was apoplectic that these "truthers" would subscribe to such a sillly idea without a peer-reviewed publication with all the graphs and analysis one would expect a forensic investigation to have.

And yet. And yet, here you blatantly admit that you don't even have a theory... And that you don't even need one! And I'm the crazy one...

The events in NYC were part of a larger event. Maybe you didn't hear, but the Pentagon was hit too, and a 4th plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Doubtless headed for the White House or the Capitol building. Put it all together with the brainpower of a salamander and it's pretty obvious what happened to the towers.

If you apply that craptastic logic to the sun, it's quite obvious that the sun revolves around the Earth. Copernicus was WRONG!!! (You should write the National Academy of Sciences and let them know you're about to publish a revolutionary theory.)

No, it's making recomendations to the industry. The NIST report was not created to placate conspiracy theorists. Sorry dude.

That doesn't remove the obligation of having a testable theory to explain what happened.

Since I'm sure you're aware that they modeled the collapses, I'm left to wonder what it is you're willing to call a "testable theory".

Surpise, surprise! They managed to "initiate global collapse" with a computer model! Amazing. Can I see the input values they used? No. Neither can you. Yet you have "faith" they did it right. Is this the "internationalprayerforum.com"?

I can get a computer to simulate a unicorn too.

How long did those fires last again? You need to review the footage with stopwatch I think. Also - how could you know that they found the steel had to be subjected to such conditions without them providing the aforementioned testable theory?

I'll answer questions I asked, but please read what I'm saying. If I'm being unclear, I apologize. I said the closest NIST has come to proposing a testable theory is in the FEA simulations.

And if you think a portion of a massive, interlocking steel framework can get to 700C for 30 minutes from a migrating hydrocarbon fire burning for 2 hours, by all means show me and I'll wash my hands of criticizing NIST. The UL office burn tests were unambiguous about the movement of the fires. Even in the most ideal situations (where the office debris was piled into a corner), the fires never got hot enough in one place to get steel members to 700C.

But hey, if that's what you want to hang your hat on, let's have that discussion.

There IS NO OCT.

There is only reality. You're welcome to join us.

My reality includes an explanation of why the towers fell that's based on the evidence at hand. You, on the other hand, subscribe to a loosely-related set of anecdotal accounts. No testing necessary. Nor even a theory...

You do realize this puts you in the same category as Creationists, right? (The Young Earth ones--not even the ones attempting scientific explanations.)

However, at least the YECs have a theory. You apparently don't even have a theory. But you're willing to defend the government's position to the death.

Do you even know what the word "skeptic" means?

That looks strikingly familiar to a description of a posting style I saw a while ago. What was that again?

What are you talking about?

You're 100% right. Nothing supernatural happened. Something unprecedented happened for sure. If this was some sort of inside job, how is the ENTIRE day connected?

I've explained myself quite thoroughly. Are you even looking for an explanation? I thought you didn't have a theory and you were good with that.

Not ONE of you people have even hinted at a testable theory that can account for the entire day's events. It's 2015. What the : is taking you so long?

"You people"? I don't speak for anyone else, that I know of.

Also, it appears you've gone from attempting to justify not having any testable explanation to asking for a complete explanation from the competing theory. That's your deal: either 1. there must be a completely coherent, testable theory, or 2. you don't even have to have a theory to keep defending the official position.

Why not stomp your feet and pound sand? That's the strength of your position.

You want to be spoon-fed a testable theory that conforms only to your specifications,...

Actually, I'll take any testable theory. Not sure what "spoon fed" means. I've read the NIST documents--most of them. Let me tell you, there's a metric ****-tonne of copying and pasting in those 10,000+ pages, but no testable theory. Maybe you're waiting for someone to "spoon-feed" you a way to defend the OCT?

Good luck without an actual theory.

...you want to ignore all theories that have already been put forth,...

Actually, I want to see a theory tested that works in the real world. Right now, there's only one, and it's not the one you like.

 

[DGM]

Good luck without an actual theory.

There really is only one. Unless you can provide an alternative.

 

[Jango]

I again agree with almost everything that you write: Yes, of course governments can be evil, and all too often are, and yes, I agree that the US government was evil when it decided to launch an all-out war against Iraq on the pretense that Saddam somehow was a threat to the US. and it abused the shock and anger after 9/11 to sell that war to the American people.

None of that increases significantly the probability that the government knowingly and purposefully allowed 9/11 to happen. This would of necessity imply that executive orderd were delivered down to the operational level to not do the job and avert whatever threats arose. This did not happen - you have no evidence for this, and it is exactly the sort of thing that would be extremely hard to keep secret. The women and men in he servives aren't stupid - they'd know at some level if there were some order at some level to stop them and keep Atta's 19 going, and you can't count on all these men and women to cover up for such murder.

Now, I have not forgotten about the orders to individual field officers to not interfere with two of the 19 in California; and about the effort to remain hush about the role of Saudi financing. But I also want to point out that these officers DO talk, and we ARE informed about the Saudi connection, and those in the know giving us that information themselves do NOT think the administration had an active hand in "letting it happen on purpose" (LIHOP).

So, I will agree that the administration had its priorities wrong and that chances to stop the attack were missed, but that assessment is made with the benefit of hindsight and no evidence for "evil government at work to harm the People".

How do you make sense of the facts that the hijackers were known about and identified prior to the attacks but the attacks happened anyway?

This is from the 8/6/01 PDB:

FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

For the attacks to happen after knowledge of the hijackers means that a whole bunch of people did not do their job. And very few people have come forward as 9/11 whistleblowers, who are just marginalized and ignored anyway because the government has not and will acknowledge their claims...even though a few whistleblowers have been censored. Governments do this sort of thing regularly. We've gotten to see that several times within the last few years with Manning, Assange and Snowden. The national framing of the "debate" goes from government illegalities to focusing on the individual who exposed said illegalities. The 9/11 whistleblowers were treated in much the same vein: they blew the whistle, the government denied their allegations and then the national conversation moved on.

It is known that the initial claim of a Pearl Harbor like 'surprise attack' is completely false. It is also known that the claims of ignorance to planes being used as weapons is similarly false. It is know that the U.S. Government (along with many others, including Israel who provided a complete list of the hijackers) knew that the hijackers were in the U.S. because they had been identified, surveilled and attempts to recruit were made.

But the attacks happened anyway.

How doesn't that tell you that the attacks were allowed to occur?

 

[NoahFence]

If you apply that craptastic logic to the sun, it's quite obvious that the sun revolves around the Earth. Copernicus was WRONG!!! (You should write the National Academy of Sciences and let them know you're about to publish a revolutionary theory.)

Sooo...

You're pretty far down the rabbit hole.

You realize that for tens of thousands of people, this wasn't something they saw on TV? It was something they felt, saw, and heard? You know, witnesses. No theory.

Fact.

 

[jaydeehess]

Solid what were the various computer simulations that NIST did run, Jay Howard?
You do understand that the various computer programs that were run are ones that were already tried and tested by the engineering community. NIST did not invent them.

What NIST did was research the inputs and run the programs. That neccessitated simplifications due to the complexity of the situations.

Predictions made in the programs were compared, when possible, to physically known details. For instance, while tower steel had markings denoting where exactly it was in the building, on fire floors the worst fire ravaged areas saw those markings destroyed. On other pieces it would not be possible to know if their heat damage occurred while the building stood and burned or in the rubble fires. What was found were a few properly identified pieces from less severe burn areas. Those pieces exhibited heat damage consistent with what the fire simulation predicted of them. Therefore the fire Sim is both testable and tested and deemed sufficient to predict steel damage throughout the structure.

Each program used known and accepted knowledge of steel behavior garnered over a century of steel structure research. It did NOT use a fictional and unspecific scenario of thermite/explosive use simply because those are not evident at all. Aircraft impact and fires are.

 

[jaydeehess]

How do you make sense of the facts that the hijackers were known about and identified prior to the attacks but the attacks happened anyway?

This is from the 8/6/01 PDB:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

For the attacks to happen after knowledge of the hijackers means that a whole bunch of people did not do their job. And very few people have come forward as 9/11 whistleblowers, who are just marginalized and ignored anyway because the government has not and will acknowledge their claims...even though a few whistleblowers have been censored. Governments do this sort of thing regularly. We've gotten to see that several times within the last few years with Manning, Assange and Snowden. The national framing of the "debate" goes from government illegalities to focusing on the individual who exposed said illegalities. The 9/11 whistleblowers were treated in much the same vein: they blew the whistle, the government denied their allegations and then the national conversation moved on.

It is known that the initial claim of a Pearl Harbor like 'surprise attack' is completely false. It is also known that the claims of ignorance to planes being used as weapons is similarly false. It is know that the U.S. Government (along with many others, including Israel who provided a complete list of the hijackers) knew that the hijackers were in the U.S. because they had been identified, surveilled and attempts to recruit were made.

But the attacks happened anyway.

How doesn't that tell you that the attacks were allowed to occur?

So you do not subscribe to Jay Howard's contentions about the demise of the structures. You accept the NIST reports that indicate how they collapsed but opine the attacks that led directly or indirectly to structures being destroyed were allowed to happen?

 

[jay howard]

Jay, you have your scientific epistemology wrong.

"Testable" theories are those that apply to future events: "If in the future premises A, B, C hold true, then D will happen" is a testable hypothesis.

Really? What was the speed of light yesterday? What is it today? What will it be tomorrow? It doesn't change. What about the density of steel in the towers? How hot is 700C? Is that the same as 700C yesterday?

What about a murder? Are detectives unable to form a theory because the events already happened? Are paleontologists unable to form theories about dinosaurs?

And as for genetics, apparently there is no way to make any progress in this field, because it requires us to make theories about data we already have.

Is the entire field of geology completely devoid of testable scientific theories? Of course not. Now, Oystein, we've talked enough that I know you're not a bumbling idiot. But you have adopted a position (that "theories only predict future events"), which is so unabashedly incorrect that it requires us to ignore the work of vast sums of interlocking theories that have been formed and corroborated (and revised) over the course of the last hundred or so years.

It may be more correct to say that "mostly, theories are about things that already happened."

And there's nothing in the way of creating a good explanation for why the towers fell that can be tested in the real world. But your entire thrust of this argument is trying to justify why you subscribe to the OCT, but cannot tell me what, specifically the OCT is.

It reminds me of M. Parenti's thoughts on this, and I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like "it is the deniers of conspriacy who must hold the most absurd positions in order to keep the water from sinking the official theory."

IF you can actually arrange for A, B and C to hold true in the very near future, or "now". If D does then not happen, the theory is falsified.
This is not possible for a one-off past event.

You don't have to murder someone to figure out that someone has been murdered. It happened in the past, and yet, it's still not necessary to murder someone to know that a murder has taken place. You can test DNA. You can test for fingerprints. You can verify alibies. There are so many ways to test to see if a murder has been committed, it just boggles the mind that you can say "theories only work for future events."

Take for example this: "The steel rivets that connected plate G with plate B had to undergo a minimum of L load at K temp for T time in order to fail". Assuming this applies to an actual building that collapsed 13.5 years ago, how would you go about actually testing it? You may have noticed that plate G and plate B do no longer exist and thus cannot be made to undergo a minimum of L load at K temp for T time.

Are the building plans unknowable? No. Is it impossible to get the steel made to the standards as the building was built? No.

Again, you are hiding behind a sheild made of feathers and feces. It doesn't work.

There's no excuse for not having a testable theory, and no excuse for you defending a non-theory.

By the way: "Groceries come from the Magic Food Bunny" is a proper testable theory (provided we construe it as implying "always") because it applies to future events.

Didn't you just qualify the theory with "always"? Does "always" only refer to the future? No. The problem is, your basic idea is wrong. Therefore nothing that comes of it will be intentionally correct.

I can easily devise a test where I observe where all the groceries originate that come to my home, say, next week. If observation shows that groceries do come from Magic Food Bunny not even in one instance, the theory would be falsified.

Actually, that's not correct. Even if you never saw the MFB, you could not rule out his existence. Rather, we observe. No MFB. But we notice trucks. A steady stream of them over the course of a week. We look inside the trucks and see they arrive full and leave empty. Still no Bunny. At this point, it's safe to theorize that the trucks are the transport mechanism. It doesn't matter what you think of the MFB at this point, but we haven't seen him. He might exist, but we do not need him to answer the question of where the food came from. We can throw out the MFB theory as useless.

It's an extraneous hypothesis at this point: tested, unconfirmed and not necessary. It's like theorizing that there's a layer of mouse ghosts in the atmosphere that keep us from flying off into space. Not observed, but possible. But more importantly, NOT NECESSARY to explain why we don't fly off into space. Throw it out.

Now, you don't even have a testable theory for the building collapses, and yet you still cling to the official explanation. Why?

If however you had a theory that "groceries came from the Magic Food Bunny" on 9/11/2001, that theory might not be testable! None of those groceries are around today, and so I am not sure how I could test this. I can dig into my records and there's even a slight chance that on an old computer I still have purchase records; and a historian worth his salt could investigate what the world was like in 2001 and figure out that no good evidence exists for the existance of a Magic Food Bunny - but that is largely a matter of luck.

Your logic is retarded. You are not retarded. Yet you keep spinning this drivel. I think you are confused. The "future events" you refer to are the tests for corroborating or falsifying a particular theory.Would you like to revise your statement that "all theories are about future events?

 

[jay howard]

There really is only one. Unless you can provide an alternative.

Oh really? Because I'll bet you cannot find a testable theory about the collapses in all the NIST documents. Maybe I just missed it.