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

[jay howard]

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

Why not you?

Because you can't test it. Not in this generalized format. How hot did the fires have to get in order to produce the kinds of failures proposed in the NIST report?

Answer: much hotter than the official story can account for.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Wow. You really don't like that the "official narrative" includes those pesky other 2 planes.

Didn't see that coming.

There is no "official" narrative that doesn't include those two planes.

 

[NoahFence]

Because you can't test it. Not in this generalized format. How hot did the fires have to get in order to produce the kinds of failures proposed in the NIST report?

Answer: much hotter than the official story can account for.

Who cares? I mean, engineers might so they can build better buildings. But you're a layman like me. So why is the minutae so important to you?

Besides the obvious of backing in a method of CD that's never happened before or since...

 

[beachnut]

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?

You CD is a gravity collapse. It would look exactly like fire did it, if you could find explosives that suck in the shell of the WTC. You got you some suck-a-boom-silent-explosives?

If it was not fire, and we had sounds of explosives, and found the evidence for explosives you would be in business; except the amount of explosives to do CD on a full up building, would be so darn big we would see supersonic ejections, all windows blown out for a mile; and blast damage to steel, and people.

With themite it is easier to discount, there was zero iron found from thermite, no damage to any steel from thermite.

I already understand steel fails in fire, and firefighters are killed in steel frame buildings in fire - this is why we as insulation to keep the steel from failing quicker - so we can fight fires, and people have time to escape.

Old 911 truth thinks steel is super and never fails, but why do they run out of buildings on fire - like the "small fires" in WTC 7, why did 911 truth followers fail to go in WTC 7 and save it? The small fires lie, wow.

Anyway, steel fails in fire, quickly -

Steel fails in fire, a testable fact. Darn, 911 truth can't test their theories and make up the new tag line of BS, "no testable theory"; failure is 911 truth, and CD.

Then we have fires fought, and the building was totaled by fire...

Tested by reality, fire made this floor fail; guess reality is not used by 911 truth; who think steel is forever.
911 truth, has only ignorance as a factor for their reasons to question 911, 19 terrorists did 911, they did not use explosives, they used planes.

Two full up tests, no notice fire.
Proof steel fails in fire, two full up tests; the "no testable theory" dies a death of reality. Was that floor sagging 3 feet, are you able to use that office again? Will the steel hold up the same values? lol, 911 truth fails.

What is the next cute tag-line?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The question isn't "do you understand the official narrative?"

It's "Is there a reason to question the official narrative?"

Actually, it's "Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?"


(*accuracy is important)

 

[carlitos]

So jay howard was BSing about Jones and thermite. But we knew that.

 

[Spanx]

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

And why would I need to tell you when you have the answers ?

 

[NoahFence]

My next testable theory is that he'll have no comment on the video that was posted that had a tested theory in it.

 

[jay howard]

Still nothing. Zero. Anyone willing to chime in with a testable hypothesis? Anyone? Beuller?

 

[Spanx]

Still nothing. Zero. Anyone willing to chime in with a testable hypothesis? Anyone? Beuller?

Why can't you just except you are right ?

 

[NoahFence]

Still nothing. Zero. Anyone willing to chime in with a testable hypothesis? Anyone? Beuller?

Ah, so no goalpost moving. You're just going to flat-out ignore the test that was provided. It's all good. We've seen your kind before and we will again.

 

[BStrong]

Because you can't test it. Not in this generalized format. How hot did the fires have to get in order to produce the kinds of failures proposed in the NIST report?

Answer: much hotter than the official story can account for.

Watch the video linked in the below post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10522841&postcount=344

The video even features reactions from the prime CT'ers on the testing shown, which is worth the price of admission alone.

 

[NoahFence]

Watch the video linked in the below post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10522841&postcount=344

The video even features reactions from the prime CT'ers on the testing shown, which is worth the price of admission alone.

Testable theory:

That won't be the last time we'll have to remind him that the video contains what he wants...

 

[Hellbound]

Testable theory is a red herring, anyway.

The entirety of the NIST report is, basically, a testable theory.

The input data used can be tested, to see if various thermal expansion values and load strengths used match to those of the types of steel being modelled (for example).

The modelling software used can be tested under other known conditions to make sure that it gives accurate simulations of events. The calculations and equations used it it can be checked to make sure they conform to real-world values.

Assumptions can be verified or not, data can be confirmed or denied, etc.

Someone seems to not understand what testable means in science. It doesn't mean "able to reproduce the event in questions exactly in every detail". It means "falsifiable, provided contrary or more compelling evidence can be shown".

Considering this, I find it humorous and ironic that the person who claims to be teaching science apparently spent dozens of pages prior to that trying to disprove an unfalsifiable theory (according to him, anyway).

 

[BStrong]

Testable theory:

That won't be the last time we'll have to remind him that the video contains what he wants...

Only the confident seek illumination

 

[jay howard]

Who cares? I mean, engineers might so they can build better buildings. But you're a layman like me. So why is the minutae so important to you?

If you really don't care, why post youtube videos? Why make any attempt at argument whatsoever? Are you worried other people might see through this line of bull?

In this case, the "minutae" of how hot steel needs to get before it fails is at the center of this debate. You take NIST's word for it that it got hot enough to fail through the radiation of heat to the steel by means of a hydrocarbon fire for 60-120 minutes of exposure.

Me, I'm a "skeptic." That means I pay attention to the gaps in logic. You take what other people say on faith. That method isn't going to produce many correct answers. We've tried as a species to get answers through faith, and it produced the Dark Ages. And if it weren't for the Dark Ages, (which is to say, Christianity), we'd probably have been on the moon about 800 years ago.

So, if you're using faith to get answers, then why reject any hypothesis? Faith in what? Authority? "Sciencey-sounding" words? Pretty graphs? Why are you taking on faith what can be tested and corroborated?

 

[NoahFence]

If you really don't care, why post youtube videos? Why make any attempt at argument whatsoever? Are you worried other people might see through this line of bull?

I didn't post a youtube video. Someone else did, but you won't watch it because you KNOW already that it proves steel can fail in fire. It was actually THE specific test you've been whining about that reality-based folks weren't providing.

In this case, the "minutae" of how hot steel needs to get before it fails is at the center of this debate. You take NIST's word for it that it got hot enough to fail through the radiation of heat to the steel by means of a hydrocarbon fire for 60-120 minutes of exposure.

I didn't take their word for it. I saw the experiment. Perhaps you missed it? It's linked to in this thread. There's another scientific testable theory experiment that shows the massive power of a few beer-gutted guys bending a steel beam that was exposed to the sun-like temperature of a campfire.

I'm sure that point will go flying over your head in free-fall speeds.

Me, I'm a "skeptic."

That means I pay attention to the gaps in logic. You take what other people say on faith. That method isn't going to produce many correct answers. We've tried as a species to get answers through faith, and it produced the Dark Ages. And if it weren't for the Dark Ages, (which is to say, Christianity), we'd probably have been on the moon about 800 years ago.

What an eccentric performance.

So, if you're using faith to get answers, then why reject any hypothesis? Faith in what? Authority? "Sciencey-sounding" words? Pretty graphs? Why are you taking on faith what can be tested and corroborated?

I am actually doing the exact opposite, and what's more you know it. You're not here to learn anything, or teach anything. You're here to prove you're smarter than everyone else. You're failing.

Miserably.

 

[beachnut]

911 truth, classic witch hunt, return to the dark ages. 911 truth followers refuse to do science, no understanding of physics, and poor math skills, they believe lies already specified by 911 truth "experts", or what ever sounds good. Loose change sounded good to kids, they believe.

"experts" = anything that sounds good on the Internet

Unarmed with science, 911 truth followers believe idiotic claims, CD, the classic inside job claim based on zero evidence. The claim becomes all the evidence followers of 911 truth need to go on a Quixotic crusade for truth; armed with dumbed down lies, spreading lies which only fool people with the gullibility and mentality of the Boston bombers.

Bottom line, with great ignorance comes the BS reasons to question the "official narrative" which the 911 truth clowns can't explain in the first place.

Unable to explain and define the "official narrative", 911 truth faith based followers sally forth on a quest to prove their ignorance, questioning something they can't explain.

 

[Animal]

Because you can't test it. Not in this generalized format. How hot did the fires have to get in order to produce the kinds of failures proposed in the NIST report?

Answer: much hotter than the official story can account for.

Really? The fact that heat weakens steel has been known for at least 150 years..........welcome to Civil War era technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrUBFDYe0U

 

[DGM]

Really? The fact that heat weakens steel has been known for at least 150 years..........welcome to Civil War era technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrUBFDYe0U

Isn't it telling how they keep trying to pick apart the "official story" while having none of their own*. "Truthers" have got to be the laziest "movement" in history.


* except for the "official story" is wrong.