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

[DGM]

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

Good to know you don't hold any faith in ideas the "truthers" have put forward. Do you have any opinion on what happened on 9/11/01?

 

[DGM]

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.

So there are no theories at all about what happened to the buildings on 9/11?

 

[DGM]

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.

Strange you say this. You seem to view the Harrit et al paper as scientific yet, it's results conclusions are not repeatable (no one has been able too, although a few have tried). Can you explain this contradiction?

 

[Oystein]

Jay,

I notice you threw out the part where I described HOW the NIST actually tried to test a theory about the collapse of WTC7. Why did you do that?

Yes, we have building plans and steel specs; but we don't have the actual conditions that prevailed on 9/11/2001. We don't know how closely the building matched specifications that day, and we have only limited knowledge about the exact fire conditions.
So we can't test the theory to the degree of accuracy that truthers demand.
What can be done is demonstrate that a building LIKE the ones that collapsed on 9/11 can collapse due to fires LIKE the ones that raged on 9/11. NIST did demonstrate such scenarios - which they considered to be the "most probable". Were those the true ones? Impossible to know, because the true object on which to do the definite tests do not exist anymore. They are all in the past which we can't reach.

I agree that we should throw out unnecessary entities. That's why I throw out explosives and thermite. Fires are sufficient to explain the collapses and everthing.

 

[Oystein]

Strange you say this. You seem to view the Harrit et al paper as scientific yet, it's results are not repeatable (no one has been able too, although a few have tried). Can you explain this contradiction?

Huh? They are repeatable - Millette found what they found - iron oxide pigments and kaolin. Basile found what they found - burning hydrocarbon and nothing explosive.
The results are easily repeatable. Only the conclusions should not be repeated, as they are all wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

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."




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."




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.




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.




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?




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?

Rationality.
You're doing it wrong.

 

[DGM]

Huh? They are repeatable - Millette found what they found - iron oxide pigments and kaolin. Basile found what they found - burning hydrocarbon and nothing explosive.
The results are easily repeatable. Only the conclusions should not be repeated, as they are all wrong.

"results" is not the correct word, "conclusions" is what I meant.

 

[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.

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.

Seems you might have.

 

[pgimeno]

Compare this to Jones' approach: he starts by saying "these iron microspheres are suspicious."

You got this bit wrong. Jones started by saying "Thermite did it". His digging into the chips from the dust is the result of that preconceived notion.

 

[beachnut]

....
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?

Retarded, as you have a theory you can't explain or support with evidence.

911 truth has no idea fire did 911, and it is a fact. If 911 truth had evidence for the BS CD fantasy, you could say it was a fact; but it is the delusional claptrap from old men and people who can't do science, research, logic, and more. poor 911 truth, no progress after 13 years. Lucky for Watergate being exposed, 911 truth followers were not running that investigation... Debating 911 truth followers is the same as debating Bigfoot believers.

.... Your logic is retarded. ...

Which makes 911 truth's theory a level of retardation never seen before, reaching undefined levels of ignorance. Gee, what is your theory? Magic thermite, magic explosives, and magic MIB, all who left zero evidence.
911 truth can't figure out 911 after 13 years of failed research, failed logic, failed movement. The reason 911 truth questions the official narrative, is ignorance. 19 terrorists did 911, a complex plot...
1. take planes
2. crash planes

The complex part seems to be 911 truth unable to do anything close to science, and instead use BS, to make up some inside job no one in 911 truth can define, or produce evidence.
The only thing creative UBL's dolts did, was to use hijacking as a ruse to murder thousands. Not sure if the discussed kinetic energy before they flew, or "lucked out" flying fast, thus increasing the KE 7 to 11 times the KE value WTC towers were design to stop. Did they plane on going fast, or just slam the throttles to the firewall.
What we have is a few people at the top of the 911 truth movement pyramid who sell books, DVDs, and ideas - and the peanut gallery of dumbed down followers who repeat lies from 911 truth and make no progress, take no action.
13 years of BS -

At least we have a great example of projection -

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There was once a time that it was proper to question it, as I was really into the collapse mechanics and engineering stuff. Now, not so much. Most of the foundation material - if not all - is testable, and tested already. It's the very literature we reference to put our buildings together. so... pffff. Otherwise you could go into the political aspects, but engineering wise it's cut and dry after all this time. People still insisting the engineering was off, either don't know (a minority of the active "truthers") vs the hardcore ones who are dead set on "CD" already and have been for a number of years. The politics are a little more murky and support a CYA aspect more than an inside job angle.

Eh, some people could question it if they aren't incredibly familiar and have genuine questions but that breed of posters and "CT's" has been sparse as of late.

 

[JSanderO]

There was once a time that it was proper to question it, as I was really into the collapse mechanics and engineering stuff. Now, not so much. Most of the foundation material - if not all - is testable, and tested already. It's the very literature we reference to put our buildings together. so... pffff. Otherwise you could go into the political aspects, but engineering wise it's cut and dry after all this time. People still insisting the engineering was off, either don't know (a minority of the active "truthers") vs the hardcore ones who are dead set on "CD" already and have been for a number of years. The politics are a little more murky and support a CYA aspect more than an inside job angle.

Eh, some people could question it if they aren't incredibly familiar and have genuine questions but that breed of posters and "CT's" has been sparse as of late.

The problem for the truthers is their denial of the engineer and science and believing what amounts to "junk science" and failure to understand engineering. Their disbelief, their distrust of officials while somewhat understandable as a starting point completely blocks their ability to think properly about 9/11. This sort of smart people acting stupid especially when there are ample resources to inform themselves is the most remarkable aspect of the truth movement. I find the willful ignorance astounding... and the too easy acceptance of the pronouncements of "experts" who are misinformed (and willfully so) rather amazing... and sad.

 

[jay howard]

Seems you might have.

Alright, jaydee, show me what you've found. I'm all ears. What's NIST's testable theory of collapse?

 

[NoahFence]

Alright, jaydee, show me what you've found. I'm all ears. What's NIST's testable theory of collapse?

They ran computer simulations and reported on them. That you yourself aren't satisfied with that is frankly tough luck. The engineering community apparently has no beef with it, as they've since used the NIST report to make changes to building codes.

In short, you don't matter.

 

[Jango]

They ran computer simulations and reported on them. That you yourself aren't satisfied with that is frankly tough luck. The engineering community apparently has no beef with it, as they've since used the NIST report to make changes to building codes.

In short, you don't matter.

Then why bother even responding to him or what he has said?

 

[NoahFence]

Then why bother even responding to him or what he has said?

Chew toy.

 

[jay howard]

The answer to the question, "is there ligitimate reason to question the official narrative?" is yes.

The problem, as everyone here is eager to demonstrate, is that there is no testable theory under the "Official" rubric. No testable theory = no explanation.

If you can't test for it, you're not doing science. NIST isn't appealing to a scientific explanation when they give their armchair assessment of the collapses.

If you do not have a scientific explanation of what caused the towers to collapse, what are you relying on? On the word of an authority? Is that what you rely on to make good decisions? God help you.

Regardless of what you think about 9/11, those who defend the NIST report are definitely not "skeptics".

A skeptic would doubt the conclusions of a report for which there was no testable theory.

 

[Spanx]

The answer to the question, "is there ligitimate reason to question the official narrative?" is yes.

The problem, as everyone here is eager to demonstrate, is that there is no testable theory under the "Official" rubric. No testable theory = no explanation.

If you can't test for it, you're not doing science. NIST isn't appealing to a scientific explanation when they give their armchair assessment of the collapses.

If you do not have a scientific explanation of what caused the towers to collapse, what are you relying on? On the word of an authority? Is that what you rely on to make good decisions? God help you.

Regardless of what you think about 9/11, those who defend the NIST report are definitely not "skeptics".

A skeptic would doubt the conclusions of a report for which there was no testable theory.

Come on Jay, keep up

 

[jay howard]

You got this bit wrong. Jones started by saying "Thermite did it". His digging into the chips from the dust is the result of that preconceived notion.

No, you are mistaken. He didn't claim "thermite did it" then find the microspheres. He first found the microspheres, then theorized thermite.

The ms were the initial reason he theorized "thermite."

I can understand why you're confused, but the NIST method of theory creation (start with a conclusion and pick evidence to fill it in), was not the method Jones used. He started with a sample of dust, analysed it and found the ms. Only then did he hypothesize thermite.

So, pgimeno, what is the tested theory you're defending? (I'll bet you don't have one.)

 

[jay howard]

Does anyone have a real argument defending the OCT? Anyone?

Is this how it's going to be? I call you all out for defending a non-scientific stance, a few posters throw some circumstantial ad hominems, and then crickets?

It's not like I'm some master logician, it's that you cannot defend something that doesn't exist. But that won't stop anyone from trying to change the subject.

Did you notice how many times posters tried to change the subject and ask what my theory was on the collapses? That's what happens when you cannot defend your position. Hide. Distract. Change the subject. Demean. Maintain confident manner. All of it, so predictable. But yet, still not a single defender can point to a testable theory.

Anytime anyone wants to point one out, be my guest.