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

[Spanx]

Zero responses from anyone attempting to say what the testable theory was. Zero.

At this point, it's clear that the official narrative cannot undergo the kind of scrutiny that the CD Thermite theory has already undergone and survived. The CD theory is, by objective standards (not my personal ones), a better theory than the official explanation as well as all the other tin-hat productions, (i.e., DEW, No-Planes, Nukes, etc.)

Now we can throw the "NIST Theory of Collapse" into the basket with the rest of the untestable, low-explanatory-power theories like "space beams" and "holographic planes."

So, if the defenders of the official story don't have any scientific confirmation of their favorite pet theory, what other kinds of nonsense do they subscribe to? If "reasons" don't matter, why not believe in Vincent, the All-Powerful sea otter who inhabits the toilets of people who deny science? You have as much reason to believe in Vince as you do the official narrative. No one has tested for the existence of Vincent, so in your world, that's as iron-clad as the official story.

If you say so Jay,

You have done your scientific research, got all the answers, what now ?

 

[NoahFence]

Zero responses from anyone attempting to say what the testable theory was. Zero.

At this point, it's clear that the official narrative cannot undergo the kind of scrutiny that the CD Thermite theory has already undergone and survived. The CD theory is, by objective standards (not my personal ones), a better theory than the official explanation as well as all the other tin-hat productions, (i.e., DEW, No-Planes, Nukes, etc.)

I'll try to be as clear as I can -

The above paragraph is only accurate to complete and total idiots. It lacks reference to virtually everything that happened on 9/11 with the exception of the buildings that are no longer there. Who did it? No testable theory. Why did they do it? No testable theory. How did they do it? No testable theory. What did the perpetrators have against the Pentagon and a field in the middle of Pennsylvania? No testable theory.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

The various computer programs used tried and tested and proven correct formulae garned from a century of steel building research. The programs themselves predate this NIST investigation and have been used in industry in the past.

When possible, predictions made in these programs were tested against physical evidence. I already gave the example of fire damage predicted and observed in the towers. You ignored that, miss it, or was it willful?

 

[BStrong]

I take it you're the keeper of the secret tests for the "NIST theory of collapse"? Let's hear it.

Seriously, if I came here saying "IT'S THERMITE!!! Just take my word for it", everyone on this site would lambast me (and rightly so) for being a complete moron. Yet that's the exact position you are taking if you cannot show your work.

So again, show me a testable theory for the official narrative, or hide behind more diversionary tactics.

Might want to watch this:



Or might not, depending on your personal integrity.

 

[jaydeehess]

I must have missed the testable theory of thermite demolition. The one which theorizes how it was accomplished. Could someone give me a post #

 

[jay howard]

How? Would you have them build a 110 story building, and cause it to collapse into a 47 story building, both filled to the brim with office contents, carpeting, drywall, etc....? Is that your idea of a "testable" theory?

Do you need to have a black hole in order to test for one? I hope you're just playing dumb, but after all these responses, I can't even get you on the same page to begin having a rational discussion.

No, I'm not proposing building the WTC to scale and recreating as many factors as possible. That's generally not a good approach. When a plane crashes, the NTSB investigators don't crash another plane to test their theory. Is that what you think happens? Why are you even engaging me in a discussion if you don't understand these basic things?

ETA - do you honestly need a "testable theory" that says fire can weaken steel?

That's not the question. The question is "how hot and for how long did the steel in the towers have to be in order to fail like NIST says it did?"

More specifically, "What was the first steel to fail from heat alone?"

The problem the OCT runs into is that "officially," the temperatures did not exist to cause the kinds of failures that happened. Any formulation of a "Heat-Induced Collapse Theory," (HICT) which is what NIST actually proposes, either doesn't fail because 1. there isn't enough heat, or it 2. fails but requires an amount of energy that wasn't "officially" available.

Are you under the impression that NIST is the sole arbiter of information on what happened on 9/11? Their word is all there is?

Really? I don't care where a theory comes from. A good theory will stand on its own merits--that is, tests will corroborate or falsify a theory. If it's a good one, and the tests are also appropriate, then it stands a chance of being corroborated.

Please show me what theory you're referring to. Have you tried looking up what's missing in the NIST explanation?

I feel like I'm teaching an "intro to basic science" class.

 

[jay howard]

If you say so Jay,

You have done your scientific research, got all the answers, what now ?

Hey, don't get upset with me because you can't demonstrate a legitimate reason to support the official story.

 

[jay howard]

I'll try to be as clear as I can -

The above paragraph is only accurate to complete and total idiots. It lacks reference to virtually everything that happened on 9/11 with the exception of the buildings that are no longer there. Who did it? No testable theory. Why did they do it? No testable theory. How did they do it? No testable theory. What did the perpetrators have against the Pentagon and a field in the middle of Pennsylvania? No testable theory.

Did you understand what this thread is about? Hint: It's the title.

Do you have a reason to believe the official narrative? If so, is that reason based on a tested hypothesis? Hint 2: No, it's not.

 

[NoahFence]

Do you need to have a black hole in order to test for one? I hope you're just playing dumb, but after all these responses, I can't even get you on the same page to begin having a rational discussion.

You don't know what a rational discussion IS.

There has been testing done. You're IGNORING it.

No, I'm not proposing building the WTC to scale and recreating as many factors as possible. That's generally not a good approach. When a plane crashes, the NTSB investigators don't crash another plane to test their theory. Is that what you think happens? Why are you even engaging me in a discussion if you don't understand these basic things?

So modeling is ok? If so, what's your issue?
Wait - did you read the NIST report? Since they've provided to the letter what it is your above paragraph is suggesting, I'm not sure what your problem is. Well, actually I do but I'm too polite to say it.

That's not the question. The question is "how hot and for how long did the steel in the towers have to be in order to fail like NIST says it did?"

More specifically, "What was the first steel to fail from heat alone?"

Its in the report. I thought you read it? Don't you think it's better to have read something before you pick it apart, you know, so you don't look like a fool? I do.

The problem the OCT runs into is that "officially," the temperatures did not exist to cause the kinds of failures that happened. Any formulation of a "Heat-Induced Collapse Theory," (HICT) which is what NIST actually proposes, either doesn't fail because 1. there isn't enough heat, or it 2. fails but requires an amount of energy that wasn't "officially" available.

You keep saying "OCT" as if that's a thing.

It's not.

Really? I don't care where a theory comes from. A good theory will stand on its own merits--that is, tests will corroborate or falsify a theory. If it's a good one, and the tests are also appropriate, then it stands a chance of being corroborated.

OK, the theory is that if you crash a plane into a 110 story building and cause massive fires over several floors, that building CAN collapse. If only there were an identical building that suffered the same stresses so we could corroborate that theory.

Ahh.. there was. Were you alive on 9/11?

Please show me what theory you're referring to. Have you tried looking up what's missing in the NIST explanation?


I feel like I'm teaching an "intro to basic science" class.

What theory am I referring to? How about mine?

I sat there stunned as I watched the first tower fall. My "theory" was that the 2nd one was going to fall as well. This isn't frickin rocket surgery here. Steel fails in a fire. This is NOT just science. It's common sense.

You're not teaching anything other than how NOT to think rationally.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I feel like I'm teaching an "intro to basic science" class.

That'll be the Dunning–Kruger kicking in

 

[jay howard]

The various computer programs used tried and tested and proven correct formulae garned from a century of steel building research. The programs themselves predate this NIST investigation and have been used in industry in the past.

When possible, predictions made in these programs were tested against physical evidence. I already gave the example of fire damage predicted and observed in the towers. You ignored that, miss it, or was it willful?

Yes, it was willful. Let me demonstrate why: If I showed you a computer simulation of the WTC as a controlled demolition, would you suddenly change your mind about CD? No. Of course you wouldn't.

Why then, would you expect a computer simulation of a different theory (that has zero experiemental confirmation) matter at all? It's a non-starter. Apply that logic to the theory you oppose, and if you don't accept it, why would I?

Why can't anyone point to a test where they loaded and heated up some steel and see how hot and how long it takes for it to fail?

 

[NoahFence]

Did you understand what this thread is about? Hint: It's the title.

Do you have a reason to believe the official narrative? If so, is that reason based on a tested hypothesis? Hint 2: No, it's not.

"Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative"

Yes, I understand it perfectly. I'm guessing your not a fan that the other two aircraft are PART of the "official" narrative based on the fact that you people can't fit those into your asinine NYC CT's. But feel free to prove me wrong.

My testable theory is that you can't.

 

[Spanx]

Hey, don't get upset with me because you can't demonstrate a legitimate reason to support the official story.

Don't worry Jay I'm not getting upset with you.

I don't need to demonstrate anything to you, you already have the answers you want.

To be honest it sounds like you really are not to sure what to believe unless you have another reason for asking the same question over and over.

 

[jay howard]

You don't know what a rational discussion IS.

There has been testing done. You're IGNORING it.

Point it out.

So modeling is ok? If so, what's your issue?
Wait - did you read the NIST report? Since they've provided to the letter what it is your above paragraph is suggesting, I'm not sure what your problem is. Well, actually I do but I'm too polite to say it.

Its in the report. I thought you read it? Don't you think it's better to have read something before you pick it apart, you know, so you don't look like a fool? I do.

Please, show everyone how foolish I am and tell us what the testable hypothesis is.

OK, the theory is that if you crash a plane into a 110 story building and cause massive fires over several floors, that building CAN collapse.

We know that most of the time, fire doesn't cause steel framed buildings to collaspe. Your theory includes the damage from the planes. Ok. How many and which columns does your theory say need to be damaged (at minimum) to induce collapse? Has anyone devised a way to test your theory?

If not, all you have is an armchair hypothesis.

If only there were an identical building that suffered the same stresses so we could corroborate that theory.

That doesn't rule out other theories. It just means whatever happened, happened twice, or possibly 3 times that day.

What theory am I referring to? How about mine?

The one you have no support for? Ok. Good on you. If you back a theory without support (confirmation by experimentation), all theories carry the same weight. What standard are you using to tell a good explanation from a poor one?

I sat there stunned as I watched the first tower fall. My "theory" was that the 2nd one was going to fall as well. This isn't frickin rocket surgery here. Steel fails in a fire. This is NOT just science. It's common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the sun revolves around the Earth. It's common sense until someone points out that our Earthly experience falls short in this case, and that the Earth is moving around relative to the sun.

That required a lot of experimental confirmation, and people got killed for believing it. How's your common sense doing? Do you believe the Earth rotates around the sun or the sun rotates around the Earth?

You're not teaching anything other than how NOT to think rationally.

Ooh, burn!

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, it was willful. Let me demonstrate why: If I showed you a computer simulation of the WTC as a controlled demolition, would you suddenly change your mind about CD? No. Of course you wouldn't.

There was no evidence of controlled demolition. You can create a computer simulation that the moon landed on the building causing it to collapse too - doesn't make it any more plausible without evidence.

Why then, would you expect a computer simulation of a different theory (that has zero experiemental confirmation) matter at all? It's a non-starter. Apply that logic to the theory you oppose, and if you don't accept it, why would I?

Why can't anyone point to a test where they loaded and heated up some steel and see how hot and how long it takes for it to fail?

Zero experimental confirmation....
on this very page is a video that contains the experiment. You're not even LOOKING. You're just assuming, and you're failing miserably. Just like every truther before you. (in the unlikely event you care, it's around 20:00 in)

 

[jay howard]

Don't worry Jay I'm not getting upset with you.

I don't need to demonstrate anything to you, you already have the answers you want.

So you're going to take your ball and go home, huh?

Let me know if you run across a testable reason for what you believe.

 

[carlitos]

Zero responses from anyone attempting to say what the testable theory was. Zero.

Speaking of zero responses, did you miss these posts?

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

It should be easy for you to prove your assertion, then. Please show an example of Jones discussing "microspheres" before 2005.

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces.

September 2, 2006
In an e-mail message yesterday, Professor Jones did not explain how so much explosive could have been positioned in the two buildings without drawing attention. “Others are researching the maintenance activity in the buildings in the weeks prior to 9/11/2001,” he wrote.

He said his investigation was finding fluorine and zinc in metal debris and dust gathered from near the trade center site, and argued that those elements should not have been found in the building compounds. “We are investigating the possibility of thermite-based arson and demolition,” he wrote, referring to compounds that, under controlled circumstances, can cut through steel.

From an interview by Jim Fetzer (January 17, 2007):
Jim Fetzer: Q: “are you suggesting both [thermate/superthermite] were
used in the Twin Towers?”

Steven Jones: A: “I’m suggesting that’s possible along with other
explosives”

The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 7
1874-4125/09 2009 Bentham Open
Open Access
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2
, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4
, Frank M. Legge5
,
Daniel Farnsworth2
, Gregg Roberts6
, James R. Gourley7
and Bradley R. Larsen

He started with a sample of dust, analysed it and found the ms. Only then did he hypothesize thermite.

You are either mistaken or lying. Please prove me wrong.

Nope, Jones made up thermite, now jumped to over unity circuits; more BS. He made it up, he is a BS artist who jumps from BS to BS, and never stops. He is the guy who is always making up BS, nice, personable, a liar. Okay, lies are hidden in his BS.

Jones made up thermite out of the blue... okay he saw sparks, and then he backed in BS.


Jones was upset with war, so he went nuts, making up BS about 911.

You appear to have done zero research into anything related to 911; did you make up the microsphere BS, like jones made up thermite did it?

better copy this paper, it use to be at BYU, but they stopped Jones from posting BS at BYU. Jones first paper, when he went nuts on 911.
Jones, the daddy of fantasy thermite.

NIST tested floor assemblies to see if they stood up to the fire tests, they were not testing to see if they failed in fire, they had to not fail to prove the building was up to some level of specifications - thus you failed to read NIST for comprehension.

The WTC collapse is a real full up model of fire induced collapse, and engineers tested the theories, and found the WTC could collapse in fire. Research proves your new tag line, "no testable theory" is a another failed tag line for 911 truth followers to use to support fantasy, since doing engineering and science is out.

 

[NoahFence]

We know that most of the time, fire doesn't cause steel framed buildings to collaspe. Your theory includes the damage from the planes. Ok. How many and which columns does your theory say need to be damaged (at minimum) to induce collapse? Has anyone devised a way to test your theory?

Those are questions for engineers. Aircraft impact + Fire = Collapse is good enough for me.

Why not you?

 

[jay howard]

"Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative"

Yes, I understand it perfectly. I'm guessing your not a fan that the other two aircraft are PART of the "official" narrative based on the fact that you people can't fit those into your asinine NYC CT's. But feel free to prove me wrong.

My testable theory is that you can't.

Start a new thread. That's not what this one is about. The question isn't "do you understand the official narrative?"

It's "Is there a reason to question the official narrative?"
Answer: Yes.
Why? Because there is no testable theory in all of the official story. You disagree. Fine. Show me a testable theory for the official narrative.

 

[NoahFence]

There was no evidence of controlled demolition. You can create a computer simulation that the moon landed on the building causing it to collapse too - doesn't make it any more plausible without evidence.



Zero experimental confirmation....
on this very page is a video that contains the experiment. You're not even LOOKING. You're just assuming, and you're failing miserably. Just like every truther before you. (in the unlikely event you care, it's around 20:00 in)

Goalpost moving in
3...
2...
1...