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

[Jango]

Like I said Jango, any controlled demolition theory is logistically, technically, and practically impossible.

We've enjoyed civil discourse before, and you've shown light before, so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

 

[abaddon]

We've enjoyed civil discourse before, and you've shown light before, so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

No. How about you demonstrate how it would be possible. It is your crackpot claim, so you get to shoulder the burden of proof. You get to demonstrate all of it.

 

[Jango]

No. How about you demonstrate how it would be possible. It is your crackpot claim, so you get to shoulder the burden of proof. You get to demonstrate all of it.

I'm sorry, but who are you to speak for Mr. CJ?

 

[Spanx]

I'm sorry, but who are you to speak for Mr. CJ?

Is this the best you can offer ?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I'm sorry, but who are you to speak for Mr. CJ?

This is a forum.

Anyone reading this thread can reply to any post in this thread.


Look, I can do it too:

...so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

Not how it works old son. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Feel free to gather your evidence and organise your timeline and we'll see if it stands up to scrutiny.


See?

 

[Jango]

We've enjoyed civil discourse before, and you've shown light before, so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

*Isn't

 

[Spanx]

*Isn't

You are getting less and less convincing.

That's not to say you ever were convincing.

 

[Oystein]

We've enjoyed civil discourse before, and you've shown light before, so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

Hehe good one, the other posters' attempts to reverse burdon of proof notwithstanding.

If cj is smart, he will quickly retract his false global claim and exchange it with a softer claim: That CD is logistically, technically, and practically very difficult (reasons can be provided if needed), and no theory of CD has yet been proposed that explains how those difficulties were in fact overcome.

Claims and counter-claims about possibilities and impossibilities often lose sight of the ultimate question: What did in fact happpen? If it can be shown that CD did in fact happen, that trumps any previous assessment of impossibility.

Some may at this point want to invoke the mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", but don't fall for that. Any claim, whether ordinary or extraordinary, requires merely sufficient proof.

In science, a new claim would be a theory that supercedes an older theory, by explaining more of the known data, or explaining it better (for example with fewer unproven assumptions). The incumbent theory right after 9/11 of course was "plane crashes and fires did it", as those were the only known factors affecting the structural integrity of the towers that weren't there on 9/10, so it was overwhelmingly obvious to state this first theory.
It was confirmed by the NIST investigation, and individual aspects confirmed by various other studies.

Along comes a counter claim, made by truthers: "It's impossible for these building to collapse like that from planes and fires alone."
-> Burden of proof is on the claimant. Until claim is made out, old theory still stands.
The claim is, as of today, not made out.
Old theory still stands.

Some truthers go farther and assert positively: "WTC towers were destroyed using demolition devices."
-> Burden of proof is on the claimant. Until claim is made out, old theory still stands.
The claim is, as of today, not made out. In fact, at closer inspection, the claim lacks detail to even be acceptable as a new claim. They don't say what when where how who. The claim can thus not be tested against observations.
Old theory still stands.
And "debunkers" are fools when they pre-emptively try to defend against claims that aren't even made in full by invoking false global claims of impossibility.

 

[abaddon]

I'm sorry, but who are you to speak for Mr. CJ?

Nobody. I am not speaking for CJ, I am speaking for me. Since this is a discussion forum I can respond to whichever posts I want.

But you know this already, unless you are going to claim that you sought and received permission from the authors of the gaggle of necro-threads you resurrected to speak for them.

 

[Jango]

Nobody. I am not speaking for CJ, I am speaking for me. Since this is a discussion forum I can respond to whichever posts I want.

But you know this already, unless you are going to claim that you sought and received permission from the authors of the gaggle of necro-threads you resurrected to speak for them.

If that is true, then perhaps you should choose your wording differently in the future.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Hehe good one, the other posters' attempts to reverse burdon of proof notwithstanding.

If cj is smart, he will quickly retract his false global claim and exchange it with a softer claim: That CD is logistically, technically, and practically very difficult (reasons can be provided if needed), and no theory of CD has yet been proposed that explains how those difficulties were in fact overcome.

Claims and counter-claims about possibilities and impossibilities often lose sight of the ultimate question: What did in fact happpen? If it can be shown that CD did in fact happen, that trumps any previous assessment of impossibility.

Some may at this point want to invoke the mantra "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", but don't fall for that. Any claim, whether ordinary or extraordinary, requires merely sufficient proof.

In science, a new claim would be a theory that supercedes an older theory, by explaining more of the known data, or explaining it better (for example with fewer unproven assumptions). The incumbent theory right after 9/11 of course was "plane crashes and fires did it", as those were the only known factors affecting the structural integrity of the towers that weren't there on 9/10, so it was overwhelmingly obvious to state this first theory.
It was confirmed by the NIST investigation, and individual aspects confirmed by various other studies.

Along comes a counter claim, made by truthers: "It's impossible for these building to collapse like that from planes and fires alone."
-> Burden of proof is on the claimant. Until claim is made out, old theory still stands.
The claim is, as of today, not made out.
Old theory still stands.

Some truthers go farther and assert positively: "WTC towers were destroyed using demolition devices."
-> Burden of proof is on the claimant. Until claim is made out, old theory still stands.
The claim is, as of today, not made out. In fact, at closer inspection, the claim lacks detail to even be acceptable as a new claim. They don't say what when where how who. The claim can thus not be tested against observations.
Old theory still stands.
And "debunkers" are fools when they pre-emptively try to defend against claims that aren't even made in full by invoking false global claims of impossibility.

Oystein what I will say is impossible is for a controlled Demolition to have been pulled off without leaving evidence, since no one has presented that evidence Controlled demolition, is not even a scientific theory, because it can not physicly have taken place.
The steel itself was a witness to what happened to the buildings.
Any planned controlled Demolition theory would have to account for the over whelming lack of record of physical evidence on the steel, that I believe is not possible in this universe.
Even Dr. Greening's Ap,Theory fell short because there was no evidence of it recorded on the steel itself.
The steel is actually the main witness to what happened to it.

 

[abaddon]

If that is true, then perhaps you should choose your wording differently in the future.

When were you appointed as a moderator?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If that is true, then perhaps you should choose your wording differently in the future.

I think there's a problem in understanding here, rather than a real disagreement in wording. As a skeptic, all statements I make are provisional, based on the evidence I have available, and subject to revision if new evidence of sufficient weight should arise. However, it's rather cumbersome to have to state that every time anyone says anything, so we tend to leave it out. Speaking for myself, I personally would be happy to be held to a statement that, in the light of all the evidence available at present, and subject to revision should major new evidence arise, it is quite impossible that the Twin Towers could have been rigged for explosive demolition without the preparation being immediately obvious to the vast majority of people who entered the building on a daily basis. However, in practice I might well abbreviate that to something more along the lines of "It's impossible for the Twin Towers to have been demolished on 9/11," because life's too damned short to spell it out every time. The posters here tend to lie at different points on a continuum here between those two extremes, but generally the meaning is the same.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Oystein what I will say is impossible is for a controlled Demolition to have been pulled off without leaving evidence, since no one has presented that evidence Controlled demolition, is not even a scientific theory, because it can not physicly have taken place.
The steel itself was a witness to what happened to the buildings.
Any planned controlled Demolition theory would have to account for the over whelming lack of record of physical evidence on the steel, that I believe is not possible in this universe.
Even Dr. Greening's Ap,Theory fell short because there was no evidence of it recorded on the steel itself.
The steel is actually the main witness to what happened to it.

Highly improbable: yes; impossible: no.
You are of course that CD will leave (direct and indirect) evidence of it. But lack of evidence doesn't prove there wasn't any CD. Perhaps the evidence has not been recovered; or, if it was recovered, has not been recorded and recognized as evidence; or if it was recorded or even recognized, it has been suppressed. All of these have, strictly speaking, non-zero probabilities.

All irrelevant.

The relevant thing is: There exists no theory of CD that is supported be the existing evidence (put more pedantically: explains the existing evidence better than the incumbent theory of planes and fires and structural response to those).

Truthers have lists of items they claim are direct or indirect evidence of intentional demolition, but those turn out as not-evidence. They are either false claims (e.g. "nanothermite found", "molten steel flowing like lava"), or they don't actually explain CD more convincingly than fire-induced collapse (e.g.: "squibs", "dustification", "nearly free-fall" are all evidence of collapse itself, not of the reason for collapse)

 

[NoahFence]

We've enjoyed civil discourse before, and you've shown light before, so perhaps you wouldn't mind writing yer ideas out as to why you believe it is Logistically/Technically/Practically Impossible.

Too many people working in the buildings.
Too great a project to go unnoticed.
Too many first responders at the site.
Not enough explosions.

should I go on?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sorry, but who are you to speak for Mr. CJ?

I am, in that I agree with the point he's trying to make and can see that you are once again try to change the subject and shift the burden of proof.

But we can forestall a little bit of potentially unnecessary debate. You have expressed a belief that the towers fell as if they met no resistance. You were asked to explain why you think that's odd. As a corollary, you could explain what you think made them fall faster than they were supposed to.

 

[JayUtah]

Where is your list of legit reasons, and points on this topic you started; a very broad topic. No list yet? You never discuss, you do a special kind of Gish Gallop.

Hence why I question the scope of this thread. It was introduced as a discussion of the standard of evidence -- i.e., "What would rise to the level of credibility necessary to revisit the original investigations?" If it turns into a, "Let's rehash every single 9/11 argument in one thread," it becomes a disjoint mishmash of several arguments, and yes it would seem to promote the Gish Gallop mentality to avoid closure or concession on any one argument.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But we can forestall a little bit of potentially unnecessary debate. You have expressed a belief that the towers fell as if they met no resistance. You were asked to explain why you think that's odd. As a corollary, you could explain what you think made them fall faster than they were supposed to.

In terms of a reason to question what conspiracy theorists like to mischaracterise as "the official narrative", it's perhaps worth pointing out for the thousandth (or so) time that pretty much all sensible models of the collapse (that is, the ones that treat the laws of physics as binding rather than optional) predict top-floor-to-ground collapse times in the range 12-16 seconds, whereas the actual observed top-floor-to-ground collapse times were somewhere in the range 12-16 seconds. As a reason to question "the official narrative," the speed of collapse has been discussed to death and found wanting.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

...what conspiracy theorists like to mischaracterise as "the official narrative"...

In conspiracy rhetoric, the word "official" seems to drip with a thousand flavors of pejorative nuance. At least Jango was kind enough to footnote what he means by that. Yes, there are the results of publicly funded, broadly-sourced investigations. The publications from those would be considered the "official" findings of that investigation. But of course Richard Gage also has his "official" statements of position and policy for what he believes.

The "official" story in any of these theories is simply, "What most people find most convincing." And that's the definition conspiracy theorists don't seem to want to use.

...As a reason to question "the official narrative," the speed of collapse has been discussed to death and found wanting.

Which I was going to bring up as an odd choice for Jango to lead with. He says he's been on a 13-year quest to have these and similar questions answered. But in fact the other conspiracy theorists quit obsessing over Twin Towers collapse speeds years ago. It just wasn't a tenable argument anymore -- even by conspiracy-theorist standards -- given the widespread understanding that the towers fell exactly as expected. I guess he missed that memo.

 

[jaydeehess]

]Re: fire on the 78th floor of WTC2
Cobbled together from several posts above


Fire fighter Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.

The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 78 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 78th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.


The vast majority of fuel was dumped on floors in line with where the tanks on the planes were. That much needs little reasoning to determine. Those floors also took the brunt of physical damage as they are also in line with the greater mass and dense parts of the aircraft. Again not a lot of reasoning to manage to understand that.

More damage includes damage to perimeter floor portions, and core areas, which includes the most obvious paths, vertically, through the building, the damaged floors where maximum damage was done, again higher than 78, and the elevator shafts.
Any fuel going through shattered floor sections goes down one level and this occurs only nearer the perimeter. Inner flooring was intact. Fuel in elevator shafts goes where gravity sends it, down until it encounters either an elevator car or the bottom of the shaft. One shaft went all the way to the basement, others terminated at various floors. While 78 was one of those floors two things are possible; fuel did spill out from one shaft onto the 78th and is the source of at least one of the fires Palmer reports on; the elevator(s) from above that terminate at the 78th did not have fuel flow in it(them).

WRT fuel in the elevator shafts, depending on the amount of fuel and the duration of the fall, a substantial amount of it will aerosolize in the process, making it a substantial ignition risk.

Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods). There really is no question whether or not there were large area fires above the 78th floor of WTC2

I believe that this coherently, understandably and unemotional explains the situation. This is an aspect of the fires often opined upon by the truthers side.
Jango expressed that this aspect of the fires gave him pause as being odd.
I must inquire again if this fully addresses that and makes it non-odd?