ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
Yes 20 13.07%
No 128 83.66%
Undecided 5 3.27%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 11th March 2015, 12:33 PM   #361
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:35 PM   #362
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:37 PM   #363
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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...
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:40 PM   #364
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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?

Last edited by beachnut; 11th March 2015 at 12:42 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:41 PM   #365
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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)
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:41 PM   #366
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,537
So jay howard was BSing about Jones and thermite. But we knew that.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:42 PM   #367
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post

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 ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:46 PM   #368
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
My next testable theory is that he'll have no comment on the video that was posted that had a tested theory in it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:56 PM   #369
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Still nothing. Zero. Anyone willing to chime in with a testable hypothesis? Anyone? Beuller?
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 12:57 PM   #370
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Still nothing. Zero. Anyone willing to chime in with a testable hypothesis? Anyone? Beuller?
Why can't you just except you are right ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:02 PM   #371
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:18 PM   #372
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,515
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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...&postcount=344

The video even features reactions from the prime CT'ers on the testing shown, which is worth the price of admission alone.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:23 PM   #373
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
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.
Testable theory:

That won't be the last time we'll have to remind him that the video contains what he wants...
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:39 PM   #374
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
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).

Last edited by Hellbound; 11th March 2015 at 01:46 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:45 PM   #375
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,515
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 02:56 PM   #376
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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?
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 03:18 PM   #377
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Me, I'm a "skeptic."


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:00 PM   #378
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:11 PM   #379
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:26 PM   #380
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
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.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th March 2015 at 04:27 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:41 PM   #381
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:15 PM   #382
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:18 PM   #383
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
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
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:19 PM   #384
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,229
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.
Axxman300 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:41 PM   #385
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by George 152 View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 05:42 PM   #386
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:59 PM   #387
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 11th March 2015 at 07:14 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 07:13 PM   #388
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
...
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.

Last edited by beachnut; 11th March 2015 at 07:17 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 07:36 PM   #389
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 08:21 PM   #390
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,812
Wow, this thread has turned into this one:

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


Untestable.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 10:11 PM   #391
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.
Originally Posted by BStrong
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.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 10:58 PM   #392
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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/p...ons/tr-049.pdf


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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?
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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".
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:22 AM   #393
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Last edited by NoahFence; 12th March 2015 at 05:23 AM.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:36 AM   #394
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I think it's about time junior here bails for another 2 years....
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:11 AM   #395
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
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?
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:12 AM   #396
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
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."

Last edited by Hellbound; 12th March 2015 at 07:14 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:34 AM   #397
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,537
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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:36 AM   #398
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
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).

Last edited by Hellbound; 12th March 2015 at 07:38 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:40 AM   #399
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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.


Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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?


Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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?



Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
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?
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:44 AM   #400
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,537
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
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.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.