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

[NoahFence]

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.

They're not even good enough to acknowledge the entire "official story". They leave a full half of it off!

Lazy.

 

[Animal]

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.

It is so funny to see the "not enough heat" claim. When a simple bonfire is enough to weaken steel to a point that a few out of shape guys can bend it in a few seconds.......not even close to the loading on any given beam, girder or joist in the structure.

 

[George 152]

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

Much much longer than that.
Look at farriers and blacksmiths using coke fired forges to soften any metal before working it into the shapes and tools they need.
Those metal working trades seem to always be ignored by the kooks

 

[Axxman300]

Have you ever heard of a "scientific test"? This is what the "debate" has devolved into: explaining basic scientific terms to adults.

A "hypothesis" is a guess about something. A "test" is a method to determine the merits of a hypothesis. A "hypothesis" and a "theory" are the same thing for this discussion. Take a minute. Let that soak in.
.

No, the second this conversation is framed as a scientific discussion Hypothesis and Theory are not the same thing.

NIST's biggest problem is that they were left having the explain the obvious to people who are oblivious.

 

[Animal]

Much much longer than that.
Look at farriers and blacksmiths using coke fired forges to soften any metal before working it into the shapes and tools they need.
Those metal working trades seem to always be ignored by the kooks

I know but we cannot rub it in too much with the ill informed.

 

[Animal]

No, the second this conversation is framed as a scientific discussion Hypothesis and Theory are not the same thing.

NIST's biggest problem is that they were left having the explain the obvious to people who are oblivious.

I am going to have to steal that line

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

You're claiming skepticism because you can't fathom how a result can be determined, and you think simulations and calculations can be fudged? If that's how you think, then you've rejected how every building you enter on a daily basis is built and designed. Engineers calculate and design buildings before they're even constructed, and yet despite the fact that they are using calculations and simulations that YOU think are worthless, our buildings work properly. And yet you seemingly expect that the process cannot work in determining how structures fail, which by the way means you've rejected the methods by which most engineering failures/disasters have been investigated.

 

[beachnut]

...
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?

Really quick, it fails quick, this is why insulation is applied, to keep it from failing quick, so you can get out of the building... this is basic knowledge on steel, and why you see warehouses flat after a fire as major as those on 911.

Look, see, learn.

Steel fails faster than structural wood. OMG, a test, more like reality of fire, but you asked for it, and now you will ignore it. Ignore.

Then we have fires not started with jet fuel, no big giant hole from an aircraft impact, etc. and this fire fed with office stuff, destroyed a building.

Do you need a model for the 3 feet sagging floor? OMG, another test, reality based real life, office fire destroys building, never used again.
Note: this office building had no damage to fire insulation on the steel, yet the building failed in fire, never used again.

I find it funny, we are change video shows this building above, never to be used again becuase the structure failed in fire - they show why it did not collapse further than the major sagging -

The fires were fought. If WTC 7 fires were fought, WTC 7 would be around, but 911 truth ignores the death of fire fighters, and the lack of water, and make up lies.

Two full up reality based test, which you have to ignore because you have the CD fantasy you can't explain, or defend with evidence.

Does steel fail in fire, is it a theory? No, it fact.

Wow, the steel only structure failed in the first hours, and the concrete people were able to claim victory for the core, it was concrete. The fires were fought, yet the steel structure failed quickly.

3 simple real life test, prove 911 truth's claim steel can't fail in fire to be a lie.

You have a new tag line for spreading 911 truth BS. "no testable theory", yet you can't explain what is not testable. Fire did 911, it is a fact, not a theory.
You have the "no testable theory", CD, and you can't explain or support it.'
Your CD theory must be the reasons you question the official narrative; which official narrative are you talking about. 19 terrorists did 911, it is a fact, no some far fetch theory like CD.

I don't understand, you claim steel can't collapse, yet there it is, a steel structure gone. "no testable theory" is about as good as "inside job".

13 years of, BS, with dumb tag-lines like, "no testable theory", "path of greatest resistance", and more.

 

[pgimeno]

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."

The linked article proves you wrong. No single appearance of the string "sphere" in it. Check it. I've reproduced my quote with the link for you.

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.

Wrong. NIST prepared several hypotheses including the explosives, and they went with the most plausible one once they discarded the others.

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

Here's one example of a testable hypothesis:

"There were five Arabic people in AA11".

Test:

Ask AA for a passenger list.

Result:

Positive, the names are there.

There.

Want more?

 

[LSSBB]

Wow, this thread has turned into this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180026


Untestable.

 

[jay howard]

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.

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.

Watch the video linked in the below post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=344

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

Why didn't you just say "have you seen the NG special about 911?" Well, the plugins were out of date anyway, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

You know, if you guys didn't play stupid, it wouldn't sound so much like an elementary school classroom. But you're the reason mom and dad are getting a divorce.

It's a test. I'll give it that. But what theory is it testing? "Can unsecured steel soften under heat and load?" I don't see how this test does more than confirm that general idea. But we know this already. What exactly did this prove to you that you didn't already know?

What we still don't know is: How hot did the steel in the WTC have to get in order to fail in the ways we saw?" That question is not clarified at all, at all by the NG test.

You guys understand that, right? Those beams were not secured to the foundation, nor were they latticed together. So they're missing (welded/bolted) support in 3 planes, as well as underestimating the thermal conductivity by not having the beams interlocked. The fire pit seemed fine as a heat source. But there's no basis from which to draw conclusions about the WTC collapses.

This test isn't trying to answer how the buildings collapsed. At best, this is a science fair gimmick. At worst, it's a PR campaign. But not much hard science going on. And as designed, too many variables left uncontrolled to isolate a particular property or effect. In other words, it's "neato!" but not helpful.

But again, you've all managed to veer off topic. It's as if you really don't want to talk about the subject of the thread. As if talking about it causes gastrointestinal pain because you are forced to swallow a truck load of bull feces to defend your position.

 

[beachnut]

You know, if you guys didn't play stupid, it wouldn't sound so much like an elementary school classroom. But you're the reason mom and dad are getting a divorce.

Is this evidence for CD, or what. My dad is dead, he was married for over 50 years to my mother - this must match your ability to figure out 911 - off by 50 years. An elementary school classroom teaches cause and effect, starting in first grade; that alone is what is needed to keep from falling for CD or the BS which make people think there are reasons to question 19 terrorists who did 911. In reality, if you could master cause and effect, a first grade topic, you would not be a CD fantasy follower - thus big error with the weak attack on poster, elementary school topic beat you believing CD.

It's a test. I'll give it that. But what theory is it testing? "Can unsecured steel soften under heat and load?" I don't see how this test does more than confirm that general idea. But we know this already. What exactly did this prove to you that you didn't already know?

Oops, you missed full up building falling apart from fire; steel failed, and you ignore. Anyway, why is that a reason to question 19 terrorists doing 911, your inability to figure out steel fails in fire.

What we still don't know is: How hot did the steel in the WTC have to get in order to fail in the ways we saw?" That question is not clarified at all, at all by the NG test.

Hot enough, it does not take much, his is why steel is insulated from from, it fails quickly. The insulation gives time for people to get out, and fire fighters to try and stop the fire - but steel fails in fire fought too, as pointed out with real examples of building gone, destroyed by fire. Things 911 truth ignores.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf

But again, you've all managed to veer off topic. It's as if you really don't want to talk about the subject of the thread. As if talking about it causes gastrointestinal pain because you are forced to swallow a truck load of bull feces to defend your position.

Veer off topic?

You know, if you guys didn't play stupid, ...

Not as far as you did.
19 terrorists did 911, you have some fantasy inside job you can't explain, and you can't pick one legitimate reason to question the official story; so you veer off topic; claiming science is "a science fair gimmick". (wow)

Science, is "a science fair gimmick". Wow, that is ... wow

You can only say that if the "science is fake". The so called "science fair gimmick", is science. This perception problem might be the reason for believing the fantasy of CD, you think real science is a "gimmick", and CD fantasy is real.

At least you might have made up a new tag-line for 911 truth, the no testable theory BS, might be a new one. What is not testable? Got a list?
And why does this BS count as a legitimate reason? You ignore all "tests".

 

[NoahFence]

Why didn't you just say "have you seen the NG special about 911?" Well, the plugins were out of date anyway, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

As if that would make any difference. You would have said you saw 5 minutes of it and not bothered with the rest - assuming you would respond to it at all.

You know, if you guys didn't play stupid, it wouldn't sound so much like an elementary school classroom. But you're the reason mom and dad are getting a divorce.

Pot meet kettle.

It's a test. I'll give it that. But what theory is it testing? "Can unsecured steel soften under heat and load?" I don't see how this test does more than confirm that general idea. But we know this already. What exactly did this prove to you that you didn't already know?

I knew you'd find a way to move those goalposts.

What we still don't know is: How hot did the steel in the WTC have to get in order to fail in the ways we saw?" That question is not clarified at all, at all by the NG test.

To sane, rational people, that NG test proves what it needed to. Unless the stresses on the steel in the WTC were somehow less than that of the one in the NG test? You didn't happen to take a gander at the Sherman's Necktie experiment did you? The one that proves steel in a fire for an hour takes very little effort to destroy?

You guys understand that, right? Those beams were not secured to the foundation, nor were they latticed together. So they're missing (welded/bolted) support in 3 planes, as well as underestimating the thermal conductivity by not having the beams interlocked. The fire pit seemed fine as a heat source. But there's no basis from which to draw conclusions about the WTC collapses.

So welds and steel bolts suffered the same fate as the steel. Secured, unsecured, it doesn't matter in the real world.

This test isn't trying to answer how the buildings collapsed. At best, this is a science fair gimmick. At worst, it's a PR campaign. But not much hard science going on. And as designed, too many variables left uncontrolled to isolate a particular property or effect. In other words, it's "neato!" but not helpful.

...and the dismissal begins. You've covered every asinine play in the conspiritard playbook. As I said before - we've seen your kind before and will again.

But again, you've all managed to veer off topic. It's as if you really don't want to talk about the subject of the thread. As if talking about it causes gastrointestinal pain because you are forced to swallow a truck load of bull feces to defend your position.

Yes, by all means, lets get back on topic. Are you now willing to talk about the rest of the "official narrative" - or are we still stuck only talking about the 1/2 of the story you deem relevant?

 

[NoahFence]

I think it's about time junior here bails for another 2 years....

 

[jay howard]

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.

It is so funny to see the "not enough heat" claim. When a simple bonfire is enough to weaken steel to a point that a few out of shape guys can bend it in a few seconds.......not even close to the loading on any given beam, girder or joist in the structure.

I know but we cannot rub it in too much with the ill informed.

There used to be an effort to appear to give a **** about good science vs. the other kinds. Not anymore.

Do any of you geniuses have a testable theory for the official narrative or are all of you taking their conclusions on faith?

 

[Hellbound]

There used to be an effort to appear to give a **** about good science vs. the other kinds. Not anymore.

Do any of you geniuses have a testable theory for the official narrative or are all of you taking their conclusions on faith?

Can you tell us all how purple the color green is or are you just accepting colors on faith?

ETA: Or more to the point:

"Testable...You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

 

[carlitos]

All they have to do is re-build the 3 World Trade Center towers, get a couple of 767s, and re-create the whole thing. If it burns and falls in a different way - whammo - inside jobby-job.

I note that jay howard ignored yet another chance to defend his assertion about Jones' microsphere discovery preceding his "thermite" argument. Tsk, tsk. Not very evidence-based, er, skeptical of him.

 

[Hellbound]

All they have to do is re-build the 3 World Trade Center towers, get a couple of 767s, and re-create the whole thing. If it burns and falls in a different way - whammo - inside jobby-job.

I note that jay howard ignored yet another chance to defend his assertion about Jones' microsphere discovery preceding his "thermite" argument. Tsk, tsk. Not very evidence-based, er, skeptical of him.

Yep. Thermite came about when everyone started pointing out the abject ignorance of the supposed hush-a-boom explosives. It was a way to have your explosives while on a low-noise diet among the CTer set. Once they'd decided on that (which was, by the way, an admission that the evidence for explosives was non-existent), then they started looking for anything that they could use to confirm it (whether it was sensible or not).

 

[jay howard]

As if that would make any difference. You would have said you saw 5 minutes of it and not bothered with the rest - assuming you would respond to it at all.

I saw the whole thing. But I haven't changed my opinion about it since the first time. Here's what gets me: they could, if NG wanted to, build a real test: latticed beams in some cubic arrangement, and say, blast it with a *********** Howitzer, then light the pool of fuel up. And watch as it does... nothing. Nothing but blacken the remaining steel.

Then what? Would you be convinced at that point? I'm sure you would.

But of course, that wouldn't reinforce the sales pitch. It's also telling that 13 years later, there is a concerted effort to accept the official results, yet with full knowledge that there is no testable theory. There's a lot of effort being put forth to support the idea that we should just take the government's word for what happened--even though they were commissioned to find out.

I knew you'd find a way to move those goalposts.

What did the NG test demonstrate that you didn't know already? This is not a rhetorical question. It bears directly on this discussion. I propose the test did not demonstrate anything you didn't already know. What do you say?

To sane, rational people, that NG test proves what it needed to. Unless the stresses on the steel in the WTC were somehow less than that of the one in the NG test? You didn't happen to take a gander at the Sherman's Necktie experiment did you? The one that proves steel in a fire for an hour takes very little effort to destroy?

My emphasis. So, what exactly did it prove?

Yes, by all means, lets get back on topic. Are you now willing to talk about the rest of the "official narrative" - or are we still stuck only talking about the 1/2 of the story you deem relevant?

I just want to see a testable theory in the "official narrative." Despite all your bluster and spirit, you have yet to make the first move to defend your position. You're just laying there with your belly exposed claiming you "don't need a testable theory" because you saw the collapses. Weak tits, tommy.

Does anyone else here feel like this is a good justification?

 

[carlitos]

Yep. Thermite came about when everyone started pointing out the abject ignorance of the supposed hush-a-boom explosives. It was a way to have your explosives while on a low-noise diet among the CTer set. Once they'd decided on that (which was, by the way, an admission that the evidence for explosives was non-existent), then they started looking for anything that they could use to confirm it (whether it was sensible or not).

As I've pointed out before, going from silent explosives to invisible thermite flashes is kind of insane. Hundreds of tons of thermite flashing off would have blinded people in lower Manhattan.