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

[LSSBB]

Actually, to do experiments, you just need to know how to construct a proper experiment. It is a process that can be learned by anyone. Interpreting the results properly can also be learned. Experiments can be designed and used in all sorts of areas of interest.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, to do experiments, you just need to know how to construct a proper experiment. It is a process that can be learned by anyone. Interpreting the results properly can also be learned. Experiments can be designed and used in all sorts of areas of interest.

Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.

 

[LSSBB]

Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.

Agreed that if you don't know the field, it will take longer because you will have to feel your way through several screening experiments.

Jones et al. did not do the screening, they just pop off an isolated experiment and misrepresent the results. Doesn't matter to them, as long as it sounds sciencey enough followers will try to shoehorn it into relevance, like devoted Star Trek fans trying to explain warp drive.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Agreed that if you don't know the field, it will take longer because you will have to feel your way through several screening experiments.

Jones et al. did not do the screening, they just pop off an isolated experiment and misrepresent the results. Doesn't matter to them, as long as it sounds sciencey enough followers will try to shoehorn it into relevance, like devoted Star Trek fans trying to explain warp drive.

Exactly Jones failed because his experiments were not relevant to the conditions in
the impact fires and collapses.

Just as Jay Howard failed because his experiments were in a fire not in the hot gasses produced by a fire with water in a reducing environment, another worthless Jonesofile experiment where any sulfur produced is burned in air converted back to SO2 before it can react with the steel.
What he fails to understand the reaction most likely occurs in a chimney effect of hot combustion gases such as CO, combusting with SO, in hot smoke or superheated steam rising off the burning rubble piles.
That was how I got the best sulfidication results.
It is really pointless to try to explain it to Jay Howard though, because he will just hand wave away,
Any logical responds.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.

A very good article from a well respected university.
ADA425147.PDF
Shame Jay Howard will never read or understand it.