How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?

How much research does one have to do before one can take a position on how the WTC collapsed? And does it matter which position one takes?
Any one can take any position.

If one seeks respect, while proclaiming that what everyone saw happen
(planes hitting buildings that later fell, etc.) is likely not what really happened,
the burden of proof on 'one' seems high. Also, I think some count (science-challenged) YouTube videos with spooky music to be "research," when I would not.

If your goal really was to suggest that Truthers deserve more respect, "around here,"
you've had 20 opportunities to either offer worthwhile explanations, or desist from
evasions and regurgitations of debunked points.
Folks keep answering your "respect" question...but you aren't respecting their efforts.
 
It's the wrong question.

"research" is only part of the process that is necessary to earn respect. That process involves avoidance of all forms of illogic, or misapplication of scientific and mathematical principles. (The abuse of Bayes jumps out to me, for example.)

But even that isn't enough, because it's not just about presenting your case coherently, you also need to address the points made by those who present alternative arguments. This is the area where you are weakest - the questions you are asked which you are told are of vital importance to be answered otherwise no progress can be made you simply ignore. Repeatedly.

Which shows great disrespect to the community within which you are having the discussion. Which is also a terrible way to attempt to earn respect, because it's an active display of disdain for that community.
 
To take our discussion forward instead of backward, the next reasonable thing for you to do is to either (1) demonstrate the errors in this counter-argument, or (2) acknowledge that it demonstrated errors in yours.
Sure, yeah. The problem in your post is that you're begging the question. Specifically, here:
From the perspective of scientific reasoning, an observation of zero white ravens up till now, or zero collapses of tall buildings from fires up till 9/11, can indeed be logically consistent with a hypothesis (i.e. 'no white ravens exist', 'WTC 1, 2 and 7 did not collapse due to fire'). However, the hypothesis remains demonstrably false (i.e. white ravens do in fact exist, evidence plausibly accounts for fires causing WTC collapses). This highlights (1) the more nuanced and multivariate character of the actual scientific process as opposed to simplistic metrics sloppily applied to biased samples (i.e. your lay idea of being reasonable and/or scientific). It also demonstrates (2) the problem of both (a) naive generalizations and (b) naive applications of Bayesian reasoning which -- when employed in a manner where other relevant variables aren't factored in -- statistically strengthens false beliefs.
You can't just kind of drop that in there when that is the whole debate. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument here seems to be that there's nothing really wrong with my reasoning that fires causing tall buildings to collapse is improbable, but we already know the buildings collapsed from fire so the improbability doesn't matter. But obviously I'm not going to accept that we already know the buildings collapsed from fire... You can't just press the "I win" button like that lol.
 
If you have a black swan it is black no matter how many millions of white swans there may be.

Your one black swan is certainly black.
This!

Let’s say a truther and a non-truther are both staring at a black swan.

The truther REPEATEDLY says it’s a white swan that’s been painted black, but has no proof it’s been painted. The truther further backs that it’s a white swan based on the low probability that black swans even exist.

How can the non-truther respect the truther?

Is it possible to respect someone who continually repeats a baseless claim even thought there is a ton of evidence and research that dictates the claim is wrong?

Does the amount of research done to come to a baseless conclusion even matter at that point?
 
Yeah, the analogy of a swan that may have been painted black is good. Let me unpack that from my point of view.

Let's say we've never, ever heard of or seen a black swan before. Then, someone claims that they've discovered a black swan, and are showing it off. At that point, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question if the person just got a regular swan and painted it black. This is especially so if they're somehow benefitting from it, such as selling tickets to see the swan, or using the swan to justify multiple wars in the Middle-East.

How would you know if the swan is painted or not? Well, you would need to take a close look at it, maybe brush it to see if the black comes off. But we can't do that. Instead, the National Institute of Swan Inspections (NISI) does a detailed report into the issue. Except, they haven't inspected the actual swan either. That is because before they started their report, the swan was shipped off to China and eaten*. So instead, they claim to have done a computer simulation which shows the swan was not painted. Unfortunately, the computer simulation is not publicly released, so we just kind of have to take their word for it. Also, NISI is under the same organisation as the guy who was selling tickets to see the swan.

* See question 22: https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
 
Yeah, the analogy of a swan that may have been painted black is good. Let me unpack that from my point of view.

Let's say we've never, ever heard of or seen a black swan before. Then, someone claims that they've discovered a black swan, and are showing it off. At that point, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question if the person just got a regular swan and painted it black. This is especially so if they're somehow benefitting from it, such as selling tickets to see the swan, or using the swan to justify multiple wars in the Middle-East.

How would you know if the swan is painted or not? Well, you would need to take a close look at it, maybe brush it to see if the black comes off. But we can't do that. Instead, the National Institute of Swan Inspections (NISI) does a detailed report into the issue. Except, they haven't inspected the actual swan either. That is because before they started their report, the swan was shipped off to China and eaten*. So instead, they claim to have done a computer simulation which shows the swan was not painted. Unfortunately, the computer simulation is not publicly released, so we just kind of have to take their word for it. Also, NISI is under the same organisation as the guy who was selling tickets to see the swan.

* See question 22: https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
The bottom line is that there is still a black swan sitting there yet someone is claiming it’s a white swan that’s been painted black with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of paint.

Then they further back up it has to be painted based on the low probability of the existence of black swans.
 
Sure, yeah. The problem in your post is that you're begging the question. Specifically, here:

You can't just kind of drop that in there when that is the whole debate. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument here seems to be that there's nothing really wrong with my reasoning that fires causing tall buildings to collapse is improbable, but we already know the buildings collapsed from fire so the improbability doesn't matter. But obviously I'm not going to accept that we already know the buildings collapsed from fire... You can't just press the "I win" button like that lol.

Since you kindly asked me, let me hereby correct you that you are indeed wrong in the way you read that and ignored the point made.

Forget about 9/11 ever having happened. I'm saying that even before the actual collapses your faulty application of the logic of priors would strengthen the probability of false beliefs in all sorts of phenomena, such as the improbability of white ravens or chihuahuas which we know to exist. So on account of your logic alone, it manages to cast zero doubt on fires being capable of causing the collapse of tall buildings since by the same logic (i.e. 'it didn't happen before') the existence of black swans and white ravens are improbable and yet they demonstrably exist.

But thanks for being open to correction. While we're at it, let's try to apply Bayes and scientific principles properly. A scientist of any salt, when dealing with complex multivariate phenomena (read: most phenomena), will never be content by simple aggregate values such as the ratio of previous collapses of tall buildings by fire, or the colour ratios of previous ravens observed, in order to generate helpful probability distributions. Why? Because there are so many other variables that are relevant for the calculation. Therefore, he will break the aggregate value down by these relevant variables, such as type of fire, the length of fire, height of building, the structural vulnerabilities of the building, first responder presence, to name some but not all. They all must factor in and be realistically weighted, and not just a few of these relevant variables at the expense of others, which is what some truthers indulge in to prove their own narrative. In the case of ravens he will factor in the prevalence of albinism in aviculture. The result is a more complex calculation.

And voila! When we control these relevant variables, we suddenly realize (a) there are no priors to a tall building of the type of WTC 7 not collapsing under similar vulnerabilities and circumstances, or a raven with albinism not being white; and (b) the future probability of similar structures with similar vulnerabilities collapsing under similar conditions is high inasmuch as is the probability of a raven with albinism to be white.

Again, please address the above points for us to get forward. Preferably on this thread.
 
Yeah, the analogy of a swan that may have been painted black is good. Let me unpack that from my point of view.

Let's say we've never, ever heard of or seen a black swan before. Then, someone claims that they've discovered a black swan, and are showing it off. At that point, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to question if the person just got a regular swan and painted it black. This is especially so if they're somehow benefitting from it, such as selling tickets to see the swan, or using the swan to justify multiple wars in the Middle-East.

How would you know if the swan is painted or not? Well, you would need to take a close look at it, maybe brush it to see if the black comes off. But we can't do that. Instead, the National Institute of Swan Inspections (NISI) does a detailed report into the issue. Except, they haven't inspected the actual swan either. That is because before they started their report, the swan was shipped off to China and eaten*. So instead, they claim to have done a computer simulation which shows the swan was not painted. Unfortunately, the computer simulation is not publicly released, so we just kind of have to take their word for it. Also, NISI is under the same organisation as the guy who was selling tickets to see the swan.

* See question 22: https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation
None of this matters.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of explosives/thermite being used to bring any buildings down that day.

There is evidence of fire. We know fire weakens steel.

Continually repeating the claim that explosives/thermite were used, no matter how much research was done to come to that conclusion, will not, in my opinion, gain respect from anyone.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER BEING USED.
 
The bottom line is that there is still a black swan sitting there yet someone is claiming it’s a white swan that’s been painted black with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of paint.

Then they further back up it has to be painted based on the low probability of the existence of black swans.
I mean if all you’re going on is that there’s a swan that appears black, how would you know if it’s painted or not? Sounds like a situation where you should be at least agnostic, if not outright skeptical. From my pov, a bunch of people are telling me the NISI report is sufficient evidence the swan isn’t painted, and I think that’s bunk.
 
Here is a comprehensive list of all tall buildings that have collapsed from fire, and an explanation of what sometimes causes this."

But you can't say that, because it's such an extraordinarily rare event that there's only one example that didn't occur on 9/11!
Do you have previous examples of tall buildings having all their steel columns on three floors being SECRETLY rigged with explosives/thermite and then at a later date, using those explosives/thermite to completely demolish the building?

I can play this game too.
 
I mean if all you’re going on is that there’s a swan that appears black, how would you know if it’s painted or not? Sounds like a situation where you should be at least agnostic, if not outright skeptical. From my pov, a bunch of people are telling me the NISI report is sufficient evidence the swan isn’t painted, and I think that’s bunk.
In it's simplest form.

You're looking at a black swan. One person says it's a black swan. The other person says it's a white swan that is painted black, but cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up.

Who are you going to believe?
 
From my pov, a bunch of people are telling me the NISI report is sufficient evidence the swan isn’t painted, and I think that’s bunk.
There's WAY more evidence than just a report that supports fire as initiation of the collapse. First and foremost is the actual PROOF that fire existed and that fire is known to weaken steel.

This is just one example of why truthers may not gain respect regarding this subject. They ignore the existence/absence of physical proof.
 
Also, the analogy of a black swan is funny, because it’s about the visual appearance of things. And if we’re going by visual appearance, then certainly WTC 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Even Mick West agrees to that, and it’s further supported by experts like Danny Jowenko. So for the analogy to fit, it’s more like we’re looking at a common white swan, but NISI puts out a report claiming it’s actually the first black swan in history. Its apparent whiteness is a trick of the light, and they’ve got a secret computer simulation to prove it!
 
Also, the analogy of a black swan is funny, because it’s about the visual appearance of things. And if we’re going by visual appearance, then certainly WTC 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Even Mick West agrees to that, and it’s further supported by experts like Danny Jowenko. So for the analogy to fit, it’s more like we’re looking at a common white swan, but NISI puts out a report claiming it’s actually the first black swan in history. Its apparent whiteness is a trick of the light, and they’ve got a secret computer simulation to prove it!
You haven't addressed that main point.

There is a black swan you and I are physically looking at. I say it's a naturally black swan. You say it's a fake black swan because it's actually a white swan painted black. The problem is you cannot provide any evidence it was painted.

And this goes back to the main subject.

Repeatedly making a claim without any evidence whatsoever while having evidence for the opposite is not worthy of respect in my opinion. Regardless of the amount of research. It just shows that someone has done quite a bit of crappy research.
 
Last edited:
And if we’re going by visual appearance, then certainly WTC 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Even Mick West agrees to that, and it’s further supported by experts like Danny Jowenko.
But we're not going by just visual appearance are we?

The claims are it was either fire that initiated the collapse or explosives/thermite. It looks like a controlled demolition. So what? Evidence supports fire. Why? Because fire was actually present! Fire weakens steel!

No physical evidence of explosives/thermite exists!
 
Even Mick West agrees to that, and it’s further supported by experts like Danny Jowenko.
The twin towers looked like they were demolished. Danny Jowenko said no. Does that mean you still think the Twin Towers were demolished?
 
Also, the analogy of a black swan is funny, because it’s about the visual appearance of things. And if we’re going by visual appearance, then certainly WTC 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Even Mick West agrees to that, and it’s further supported by experts like Danny Jowenko. So for the analogy to fit, it’s more like we’re looking at a common white swan, but NISI puts out a report claiming it’s actually the first black swan in history. Its apparent whiteness is a trick of the light, and they’ve got a secret computer simulation to prove it!
"secret simulation" — you have been shown repeatedly that at least 4 independent simulations of the WTC7 collapse exist [1]

the first time this happens, "do your research" might be a proper comment, but at this point it's clearly futile: it's not the doing of the research that's lacking, it's the clinging to points that are easily invalidated by research that makes you a conspiracy theorist who must be supposed to argue in bad faith.

"visual appearance" — you don't have any insight on why collapses look the way they do, and that there may be different causes that lead to similar looks. It's been repeatedly suggested to you that the progression of the global WTC7 collapse is a consequence of column 79 failing, and that the collapse sequence is the same no matter whether this column is cut with a thermite charge, or it fails from being overloaded. [2] The information and this insight is useless to you, which is why you fail to acknowledge it. Again, a normal person might be assumed to be lacking that information, and be told to "do your research", but that's not really what it's about with you, is it?

It can't be about the research.
It can't be about learning.
It looks like it's actually about getting attention from people you don't respect enough to honestly consider what they're saying.


[1] https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-7-collapse-easy-to-predict-hard-to-explain.12496/post-272974 and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...n-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.8270/post-278858

[2] https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wo...-alone-without-plane-impact.12533/post-275635
 
Last edited:
From my pov, a bunch of people are telling me the NISI report is sufficient evidence the swan isn’t painted, and I think that’s bunk.
"Sufficient" is a subjective judgment on your part. It's enough to satisfy a good many people with a lot of engineering knowledge, but if you don't agree, then you're welcome to come up with evidence to the contrary and formulate a narrative that takes into account all the known facts.

Here's a hint: "I think that's bunk" is not an appropriate part of such a scenario. Disagreeing with the conclusions of others doesn't do it. You have to tell us just what did happen, and you need to back it up with evidence.

(And please, folks, let's leave birds of any color out of this. :) )
 
Also, the analogy of a black swan is funny, because it’s about the visual appearance of things.

No it isn't, and for you to say so shows you're still not extending the basic courtesy of reading carefully what is written to you. The black swan analogy is an analogy for unpredictable events and faulty generalizations. As I've used it here, it simply means (one more time, please pay attention):

With complex phenomena your logic of 'no previous cases of x happening', applied to a limited sample of priors available to any given observer, strengthens, by each confirming case, the probability of blatant falsities such as the non-existence of black swans (for an observer who's only seen white swans), chihuahuas (for an observer who's only seen other dog breeds) and Europeans (for an observer who's only seen non-Europeans).

Yes, you are right in one thing: Each new confirming observation in a finite succession of fire events where fires do not cause a tall building to collapse, while all other relevant variables are being summarily excluded from our calculation, increases the probability of future no-collapses towards 1. But that would be Bayesian abuse par excellence.

What I have done is demonstrate that your logic predicts patent falsehoods and therefore should not be naively relied on. Therefore, if you're reasonable, you'd stop appealing to it and rather use Bayes appropriately as demonstrated earlier.
 
"research" is only part of the process that is necessary to earn respect. That process involves avoidance of all forms of illogic, or misapplication of scientific and mathematical principles. (The abuse of Bayes jumps out to me, for example.)
that seems like ridiculous criteria. If they had the skills to do that [in every situation] then they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists*. Sounds like you are saying "you wont get any respect around here until you believe what we do"


*note: studies show everyone believes some kind of bunk from time to time, so i dont mean to single out conspiracy theorists.
 
that seems like ridiculous criteria. If they had the skills to do that [in every situation] then they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists*. Sounds like you are saying "you wont get any respect around here until you believe what we do"
Deirdre, it is simply a FACT that some circumstances require more advanced education to understand and analyze in a meaningful way, and this is certainly one of the events that require significant engineering and material science expertise, and the mathematics that goes along with it. If a person attacks an expert panel's conclusion using his own statistics, yet fails to use those statistics properly, it's not at all ridiculous to point that out.

As they say about opinions, "everybody's got one", but that doesn't mean they're all of equal value. I think that the value of this site lies in having experts who can filter out fact from fiction, and that often takes such things as mathematical prowess that not all possess.

Your concluding statement, "Sounds like you are saying "you wont get any respect around here until you believe what we do"" makes me wonder if you're getting perilously close to the conspiracists' mistrust of any authority yourself. Please don't do that.
 
With complex phenomena your logic of 'no previous cases of x happening', applied to a limited sample of priors available to any given observer, strengthens, by each confirming case, the probability of blatant falsities such as the non-existence of black swans (for an observer who's only seen white swans), chihuahuas (for an observer who's only seen other dog breeds) and Europeans (for an observer who's only seen non-Europeans).
Okay so, do you think it's unreasonable for someone who has never seen or even heard of black swans to think that black swans probably don't exist?
 
Okay so, do you think it's unreasonable for someone who has never seen or even heard of black swans to think that black swans probably don't exist?
"Swans" are sufficiently abundant that you can use statistics in the discussion. "Buildings that fall at or near airplane collisions" are not.
 
So it would be unreasonable for me, right now, to believe that bright green swans with pink stripes probably don't exist? I've never seen or heard of such a swan.

It would be decidedly unreasonable for you to assume all future swans are white based on your subjective sample bias. It would be reasonable for you to acknowledge you don't know and haven't seen enough swans in the highly diverse animal kingdom to assume any likelihoods.

Hubris often prevents such an acknowledgement of ignorance. These days even scientifically untrained people display it, and become experts of every field.
 
So it would be unreasonable for me, right now, to believe that bright green swans with pink stripes probably don't exist? I've never seen or heard of such a swan.
No, what's unreasonable is for you to claim that it's a white swan that was painted bright green with pink stripes without having any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
 
You haven't addressed that main point.

There is a black swan you and I are physically looking at. I say it's a naturally black swan. You say it's a fake black swan because it's actually a white swan painted black. The problem is you cannot provide any evidence it was painted.
One more thing to expand on the post you quoted here... Here's two swans:



And here are two building collapses:



Now, think of how absurd it would be for someone to argue that the swan on the right is indeed white, but the swan on the left is black. They would perhaps concede that the swan on the left look very much like the swan on the right, but they would argue it has to do with the angle of the sun, some weird reflection, or something like that. They would say that the swan on the left has been proven to be the first black swan in history, despite its superficial appearance to the common white swan on the right. They say experts have proven this with various reports, and only conspiracy theorists (who are morally bad people) think the image shows two white swans.

Maybe it's redundant for me to explain the analogy any further.
 
It would be decidedly unreasonable for you to assume all future swans are white based on your subjective sample bias. It would be reasonable for you to acknowledge you don't know and haven't seen enough swans in the highly diverse animal kingdom to assume any likelihoods.

Hubris often prevents such an acknowledgement of ignorance. These days even scientifically untrained people display it, and become experts of every field.
So if I see a green swan with pink stripes, should I just say to myself: "Oh, I guess green swans with pink stripes exist after all", or should I question if someone painted it to look like that?
 
One more thing to expand on the post you quoted here... Here's two swans:



And here are two building collapses:



Now, think of how absurd it would be for someone to argue that the swan on the right is indeed white, but the swan on the left is black.

False comparison since we already know the whiteness of your two swans results from the same process.

Now you're purely trolling.
 
One more thing to expand on the post you quoted here... Here's two swans:



And here are two building collapses:



Now, think of how absurd it would be for someone to argue that the swan on the right is indeed white, but the swan on the left is black. They would perhaps concede that the swan on the left look very much like the swan on the right, but they would argue it has to do with the angle of the sun, some weird reflection, or something like that. They would say that the swan on the left has been proven to be the first black swan in history, despite its superficial appearance to the common white swan on the right. They say experts have proven this with various reports, and only conspiracy theorists (who are morally bad people) think the image shows two white swans.

Maybe it's redundant for me to explain the analogy any further.
And this is why the amount of research doesn't matter for truthers to get respect.

You post these two clips and expect that because one IS a controlled demolition due to explosives and what it looks like, the other HAS to be controlled demolition due to explosives and not fire induced. Even though there is no evidence whatsoever for explosives in the other, but fire was present.

You have been given mountains of evidence against explosives and mountains for evidence for fire yet you want to thow all that away because it LOOKS like a controlled demolition.

That's not how it works.

Again. No amount of research will get ANYONE respect when the evidence points to another conclusion.
 
False comparison since we already know the whiteness of your two swans results from the same process.

Now you're purely trolling.
So to understand what you believe, and again, correct me if I'm wrong... You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.

But then you believe the building on the left dropped in a nearly identical fashion due to random, asymmetrical fires with no planning, precision or explosive force whatsoever? Do I have that right?
 
So if I see a green swan with pink stripes, should I just say to myself: "Oh, I guess green swans with pink stripes exist after all", or should I question if someone painted it to look like that?

Strawman, arguing past my point. The actual point, repeated: A reasonable and humble observer of our biosphere expects diversity amongst and within complex phenomena and organisms, and acknowledges ignorance about all the cases of the full set due to his exposure to merely a subset.

This expectation of diversity doesn't mean he should expect the existence of something that's designed, as a poor debating tactic, to sound ridiculous.
 
So to understand what you believe, and again, correct me if I'm wrong... You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.

But then you believe the building on the left dropped in a nearly identical fashion due to random, asymmetrical fires with no planning, precision or explosive force whatsoever? Do I have that right?
Video of a verinage demolition

Using your logic, the building in your example was brought down by explosives so I have to assume that building in the video above was also brought down by explosives because they look similar in the way they came down right?
 
You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.
no. that is not why the building falls like it does. it falls like it does because key supports failed.

HOW and WHY the key supports failed, can have multiple causes.
 
So to understand what you believe, and again, correct me if I'm wrong... You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.

But then you believe the building on the left dropped in a nearly identical fashion due to random, asymmetrical fires with no planning, precision or explosive force whatsoever? Do I have that right?
And you want to believe that some mysterious group of people went undetected into a 47 storey building, gained/created access to every column in the building on three consecutive floors, rigged each column with explosives/thermite, then hid their work to look like the walls and everything else that covered those columns looked as they did before, and then detonated those explosives at a later date?
 
And here are two building collapses:

You need to go back and READ some responses to you.

Specifically, @Mendel says (in post number 257), "It's been repeatedly suggested to you that the progression of the global WTC7 collapse is a consequence of column 79 failing, and that the collapse sequence is the same no matter whether this column is cut with a thermite charge, or it fails from being overloaded."

What that means, in even simpler terms, is that a picture of a collapse due to one cause of failure is not going to look different from a picture of the other cause of failure, so stop looking at pictures as if they provide evidence.
 
So to understand what you believe, and again, correct me if I'm wrong... You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.

But then you believe the building on the left dropped in a nearly identical fashion due to random, asymmetrical fires with no planning, precision or explosive force whatsoever? Do I have that right?
Why did you post a video of WTC7 AFTER the penthouse collapsed into the building about 7 seconds earlier? Did you think leaving that part out would support your "symmetrical" claim?
 
So to understand what you believe, and again, correct me if I'm wrong... You believe the building on the right falls very smoothly and symmetrically because there were manmade, intelligently placed explosives on key structural columns that were timed to go off very precisely by professional experts, yes? Because that is what a controlled demolition is, that is why the building falls like it does.

But then you believe the building on the left dropped in a nearly identical fashion due to random, asymmetrical fires with no planning, precision or explosive force whatsoever? Do I have that right?

I'm saying, if you assume you have the right to superficially conclude by just looking at those videos that those two buildings were brought down by the same process, then under the same superficial logic black swans, Europeans and chihuahuas don't exist. Except that they do, and hence your logic falls flat on its face. Please argue the exact points I've made. Not past them.

A baseball launched by a baseball pitching machine and another one thrown by Pedro Martinez can both have exactly the same velocity and path. Under your logic, by superficially looking at the two baseballs' flight patterns we can conclude they were launched by the same process. And yet you couldn't be more wrong.

Now, you're more than free to indulge in such sloppy thinking, but please don't pretend you're being particularly reasonable or scientific in so doing.
 
no. that is not why the building falls like it does. it falls like it does because key supports failed.

HOW and WHY the key supports failed, can have multiple causes.

Yes, many key supports failed, simultaneously. If they didn't fail simultaneously, that would be a major safety risk, as the building could tip over or something like that. That's why they are timed carefully. And if only one column in one corner of the building failed, it's unlikely the building would collapse at all.
 
Back
Top