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

[jay howard]

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).

Did you read the thread title? Did you find the testable theory that NIST has been hiding?

There are about 172 threads devoted to thermite and explosives, but you can't answer the question, can you? You would rather eat a pile of dead road kill than try to defend the official narrative. Here's a hint: there's no testable theory for the collapse of the towers in the entire NIST report.

There, your homework is done. Now what? Are you going to say "well, yea, there's no testable theory of collapse, but I can't get myself to believe certain things, so here I am." Probably not. But that would be the honest thing to do.

 

[Jango]

So you do not subscribe to Jay Howard's contentions about the demise of the structures. You accept the NIST reports that indicate how they collapsed but opine the attacks that led directly or indirectly to structures being destroyed were allowed to happen?

1. I don't know what his views are about the collapses besides the lack of a testable theory within the NIST reports, which I agree with, among other deficiencies with the reports.

2. No, I am not satisfied with the NIST reports. However, as others have said (specifically ozeco), this line of conversation is a dead issue.

 

[Hellbound]

Did you read the thread title? Did you find the testable theory that NIST has been hiding?

Several people have, you simply have ignored them and acted like nothing's been posted. Most likely because you have no idea what "testable" or "theory" means in a scientific sense, or how historical theories are testable.

There are about 172 threads devoted to thermite and explosives, but you can't answer the question, can you? You would rather eat a pile of dead road kill than try to defend the official narrative. Here's a hint: there's no testable theory for the collapse of the towers in the entire NIST report.

The question has been answered, repeatedly. Your refusal to acknowledge those answers is not my problem.

ETA: Your apparent inability to read the report and determine the multitude of places where it's conclusion, inclusions, exclusions, and assumptions are testable is, likewise, not my problem. You're saying it's wrong...point out the error. Show evidence for it.*

There, your homework is done. Now what? Are you going to say "well, yea, there's no testable theory of collapse, but I can't get myself to believe certain things, so here I am." Probably not. But that would be the honest thing to do.

Sorry, but I don't take homework assignments from people who have demonstrably less knowledge of the subject than myself. I have satisfactorily completed those phases of my education where externally assigned homework is involved.

Too bad you apparently didn't.


*-Note: if you can, even in principle, do this, then that immeidately means it is NOT "untestable". Speaking of needing to learn science...

 

[NoahFence]

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.

Why would they have to do that? All they had to do was prove that the fires in the towers were hot enough to make the steel fail. Clearly - even in your twisted universe, they accomplished that. The fire caused the steel to warp. It failed. Your 'real test' doesn't mean a damn thing. Sorry, kiddo.

Put that failed steel in a skyscraper and put ~20 floors above it and the weight, in THIS universe, would be too much for it to bear.

Why was the 2nd tower hit the first one to fall?

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.

Government's word? I knew what happened that day. Unlike you people, I don't need anyone else to tell me what to think.

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?

Thank you for making my point. Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows steel fails in a fire. The test reinforced that.

My emphasis. So, what exactly did it prove?

That you people are hopeless. Even clear proof that steel fails in a fire isn't enough to tell you that steel fails in a fire.

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.

The WHOLE 'official narrative'? Or just the part you deem relevant?

 

[BStrong]

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.

Your guru's of 9/11 truth were pretty much struck dumb by watching the tests and needed to perform a fringe reset to declare the various tests null and void, but viewers can make up their own minds as to how the 9/11 truth promoters had to go from their various assertions of "it can't happen" to "the tests, the tests!" and Gage's phone call was classic and falls right into the old country music line - "are you goin' to believe me, or your lyin' eyes?"

As far as swallowing ********, not only have the truthers swallowed it, they puke it right back up and assert that it's gold.

 

[Hellbound]

How hot the steel. I love it.

How hot does the steel in these photos and videos need to be?
http://300mpg.org/blacksmithing-dvds/

 

[BStrong]

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.

remaining snipped

Kind of funny that you state that you want a real test, but the test you propose above has no relation to the actual plane strikes and resulting fires.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-17/institutional-complicity-parallels-wall-street-corruption

Posting only to point out that his position most likely is based on these ideas still. Which means, not much wasting required

 

[jay howard]

There is so much effort spent here trying to avoid facing the fact that there is no testable theory of the "Official" narrative. Lots of subject changing, and "Jeez, it's SO OBVIOUS..." but no one actually laying out a theory that can be objectively tested.

It's sad that the non-scientific position is being pushed here like it's going out of style...by "international skeptics". That's like saying "The Democratic Republic of Congo".

But I digress. So, once again, does ANYONE HAVE A TESTABLE THEORY TO DEFEND THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE?

 

[Hellbound]

Kind of funny that you state that you want a real test, but the test you propose above has no relation to the actual plane strikes and resulting fires.

Even more so considering that we have real world examples of buildings that were NOT impacted by airplanes, with fires NOT started across large areas by huge amounts of jet fuel, which never-the-less had complete collapse of steel structural elements simply because the fires went unfought.

 

[jay howard]

Kind of funny that you state that you want a real test, but the test you propose above has no relation to the actual plane strikes and resulting fires.

If there was a test like I describe above, we could at least argue the finer points of how it met or failed to meet certain criteria. As it stands, no such test exists, so we cannot even talk about it.

Propose a test and let's talk about its merits.

 

[Hellbound]

There is so much effort spent here trying to avoid facing the fact that there is no testable theory of the "Official" narrative. Lots of subject changing, and "Jeez, it's SO OBVIOUS..." but no one actually laying out a theory that can be objectively tested.

It's sad that the non-scientific position is being pushed here like it's going out of style...by "international skeptics". That's like saying "The Democratic Republic of Congo".

But I digress. So, once again, does ANYONE HAVE A TESTABLE THEORY TO DEFEND THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE?

Once again, ignoring the numerous examples posted as if they weren't there, and declaring victory.

"I've cut your arm off!"
"No you haven't!"
"What's that then?"
"It's a flesh wound! Have at you!"
"What're you going to do, bleed on me?"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Nvmd

 

[carlitos]

Just throwing this out there, but a fully-fueled 767 going 500mph has a wee bit more kinetic energy than a "*********** Howitzer" shell would have.

Still crickets from jay howard on Jones' microspheres discovery before thermite hypothesis.

This sub-forum is dead, dead, dead.

 

[Hellbound]

If there was a test like I describe above, we could at least argue the finer points of how it met or failed to meet certain criteria. As it stands, no such test exists, so we cannot even talk about it.

Propose a test and let's talk about its merits.

So, to get this straight:

Instead of NIST using KNOWN data (such as steel strengths and reactions to heat, connection types between members, floor loadings, material resistences, and similar), combining those inputs into an accepted and well-tested engineering tool for analysis, in addition to examining real-world cases where steel buildings have collapsed due to fires, you would rather create a faux structure that has little relation to the one in question, without any load, hit it with an impact that is nothing like what it was actually hit with, start fires using only fuel (and not the contents fo several square miles of office space), and that is somehow "more scientific"?

Did you finish junior high, even?

 

[jay howard]

Your guru's of 9/11 truth were pretty much struck dumb by watching the tests and needed to perform a fringe reset to declare the various tests null and void,...

What tests are you referring to?

...but viewers can make up their own minds...

Not if you can help it.

 

[NoahFence]

There is so much effort spent here trying to avoid facing the fact that there is no testable theory of the "Official" narrative. Lots of subject changing, and "Jeez, it's SO OBVIOUS..." but no one actually laying out a theory that can be objectively tested.

It's sad that the non-scientific position is being pushed here like it's going out of style...by "international skeptics". That's like saying "The Democratic Republic of Congo".

But I digress. So, once again, does ANYONE HAVE A TESTABLE THEORY TO DEFEND THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE?

 

[NoahFence]

Just throwing this out there, but a fully-fueled 767 going 500mph has a wee bit more kinetic energy than a "*********** Howitzer" shell would have.

Still crickets from jay howard on Jones' microspheres discovery before thermite hypothesis.

This sub-forum is dead, dead, dead.

...and crickets on his testable theory about the other 1/2 of 9/11 that he ignores.

 

[jay howard]

So, to get this straight:

Instead of NIST using KNOWN data (such as steel strengths and reactions to heat, connection types between members, floor loadings, material resistences, and similar), combining those inputs into an accepted and well-tested engineering tool for analysis, in addition to examining real-world cases where steel buildings have collapsed due to fires, you would rather create a faux structure that has little relation to the one in question, without any load, hit it with an impact that is nothing like what it was actually hit with, start fires using only fuel (and not the contents fo several square miles of office space), and that is somehow "more scientific"?

Did you finish junior high, even?

There we go. That's a start. Ok, so you want the steel structure to be loaded. I think that only makes sense. Ok. Load it. Damage it. (I like the Howitzer idea, but you don't. Fair enough.) You don't like the fuel source? Why not? The UL burn tests were clear about this: it didn't matter what fuel source they used, paper, wood, plastic or fuel, the terminal temps didn't change. So if you want to fill the pit with paper, go right ahead. It won't change anything.

The point of all this is that it didn't happen with a $20M dollar budget, yet you accept the conclusions nonetheless. If nothing else, this points to a lack of critical thinking skills. (Thanks, US education system! You've produced another consumer.)

 

[BStrong]

If there was a test like I describe above, we could at least argue the finer points of how it met or failed to meet certain criteria. As it stands, no such test exists, so we cannot even talk about it.

Propose a test and let's talk about its merits.

The "Test" took place on 9/11 - the structures failed.

The collapses have been investigated and adequately explained.

The fact that there are individuals that aren't happy with the investigation and explanation doesn't make the answers determined by the investigations invalid.

All the hand waving in the world doesn't turn the hot air of assertion into valid theory.

Steel fails long before it reaches it's individual melting point. Ask any machine gunner.

Structures subject to damage through impact or other stress past design parameters fail. Look at the pictures of buildings in the Marina district of San Francisco after the '89 earthquake.

Structures (including non- dwelling structures) exposed to fire can fail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30collapse.html?_r=0

At this point the null hypothesis is that the WTC towers failed due to impact damage and fire.

If you have a dissenting view on the subject, it's time to come up with something more substantial that "just asking questions" or referring to already discredited "theories" floated by individuals with no standing in the subject matter past strongly held opinions based on nothing more than their incredulous viewpoint.

And no, it's not my responsibility to come up with a test to satisfy you.