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

Thomas B

Active Member
I am not a truther, but I have some sympathy for them. It is hard to understand how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed, and it would be much easier if demolition were involved. I personally can't believe that the buildings were demolished, but I also don't really understand the mechanics of their progressive collapse.

Perhaps it's some kind of intellectual arrogance, but I feel I should be able to understand this. I think that my grasp of physics is strong enough that I should be able to study the topic and arrive at an understanding within a reasonable amount of time. I started wondering about it in earnest in 2005 and I don't think 15 years is a "reasonable" time frame. It should be possible for someone of my intelligence and discipline to satisfy their curiosity.

It is sometimes implied that I'm simply being disingenuous about this. Some have suggested outright that I'm not really "asking questions" but trying push what are actually my truther views. That is, they believe that I think I do understand how the buildings collapsed because I think they were demolished. Others have suggested that my persistent inability to understand is the result of my unwillingness to learn. In all these years, they imagine, I haven't really made an effort to understand the NIST report and related literature.

I'm not going to try to persuade anyone of my sincerity, but I do have a question that I think it would be reasonable to ask even if I were a truther. 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? Presumably, members of the general public who think the buildings collapsed "naturally" (given the damage from the planes and the fires) are entitled to do so without further research? (But consider: how do we feel about people who think they collapsed because the fires melted the cores?)

But what does it take for you to respect someone who, for the time being, finds contolled demolition more plausible than gravity-driven progressive collase? Is there a stage of someone's research where you would grant that their position is reasonable given how far they've gotten? And how long should it take for them to reach your level of understanding (of ROOSD, for example) and you'd now insist that they change their mind about controlled demolition?

I don't want to pin this on anyone in particular (I hope we can all agree that these issues come up in discussion threads here all the time), but I was spurred to write this post by a passing remark from @Jeffrey Orling on another thread.
Which may have been related to a comment @Mendel made to me:
What I hope to discuss in this thread is whether a reasonable, respectable position for skepticism about "the official story" of the WTC collapses can be constructed, at least temporarilly, and what a discussion with a truther who takes that position might look like.

Consider one last thing. If @econ41 is right (here, for example) then in order to understand how the towers actually collapsed you have to understand exactly how the Wikipedia article gets it wrong. That seems to be a pretty high research standard to set. And it seems to provide at least some provisional ground on which truthers and debunkers can have a civil discussion about what is known and not known about what happened to those tragic structures.
 
Last edited:

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I am not a truther, but I have some sympathy for them. It is hard to understand how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed, and it would be much easier if demolition were involved. I personally can't believe that the buildings were demolished, but I also don't really understand the mechanics of their progressive collapse.

Perhaps it's some kind of intellectual arrogance, but I feel I should be able to understand this. I think that my grasp of physics is strong enough that I should be able to study the topic and arrive at an understanding within a reasonable amount of time. I started wondering about it in earnest in 2005 and I don't think 15 years is a "reasonable" time frame. It should be possible for someone of my intelligence and discipline to satisfy their curiosity.

It is sometimes implied that I'm simply being disingenuous about this. Some have suggested outright that I'm not really "asking questions" but trying push what are actually my truther views. That is, they believe that I think I do understand how the buildings collapsed because I think they were demolished. Others have suggested that my persistent inability to understand is the result of my unwillingness to learn. In all these years, they imagine, I haven't really made an effort to understand the NIST report and related literature.

I'm not going to try persuade anyone of my sincerity, but I do have a question that I think it would be reasonable to ask even if I were a truther. 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? Presumably, members of the general public who think the buildings collapsed "naturally" (given the damage from the planes and the fires) are entitled to do so without further research? (But consider: how do we feel about people who think they collapsed because the fires melted the cores?)

But what does it take for you to respect someone who, for the time being, finds contolled demolition more plausible than gravity-driven progressive collase? Is there a stage of someone's research where you would grant that their position is reasonable given how far they've gotten? And how long should it take for them to reach your level of understand (of ROOSD, for example) and you'd now insist that they change their mind about controlled demolition?

I don't want to pin this on anyone in particular (I hope we can all agree that these issues come up in discussion threads here all the time), but I was spurred to write this post by a passing remark from @Jeffrey Orling on another thread.

Which may have been related to a comment @Mendel made to me:

What I hope to discuss in this thread is whether a reasonable, respectable position for skepticism about "the official story" of the WTC collapses can be constructed, at least temporarilly, and what a discussion with a truther who takes that position might look like.

Consider one last thing. If @econ41 is right (here, for example) then in order to understand how the towers actually collapsed you have to understand exactly how the Wikipedia article gets it wrong. That seems to be a pretty high research standard to set. And it seems to provide at least some provisional ground on which truthers and debunkers can have a civil discussion about what is known and not known about what happened to those tragic structures.
This site values reasoned, evidenced-based arguments. If you have a reasoned, evidence-based critique of some aspect of the NIST report or some other aspect of the "official story" of what happened on 9/11, just take the time to actually put it together instead of starting a meandering, open-ended thread wherein you merely vaguely allude to having such an argument that is forever stuck just below the surface of what you actually type. You have a habit of either consciously or unconsciously trolling the forum with roundabout threads (like this one) that fail to make any concrete, falsifiable argument and just go around in circles for a few days.
 

penk

New Member
This entire posting reads like "I'm just askin...." - which is a terrible logical position to start from.

The short version is - you are not a structural engineer. You are not an expert in stress dynamics and large scale failures. There are people who are. Any reasonable person would go "I don't understand this, but they do, and occams razor applies here. The planes hit, the buildings failed, they collapsed" - continually trying to find a hitchpoint to attach some argument that this definition is not true accomplishes nothing. It's been TWENTY YEARS since this happened. ANd there is not one shred of credible evidence that anything but "planes hit, the buildings failed" happened.

Can we move on?
 

Gamolon

Active Member
I'm not going to try persuade anyone of my sincerity, but I do have a question that I think it would be reasonable to ask even if I were a truther. How much research does one have to do before one can take a position on how the WTC collapsed?
Anyone can take a position Thomas B. Are you asking how much research one has to do before being considered credible enough or worthy of having their position discussed seriously?

If anyone comes in here claiming controlled demolition, they are flat out wrong. Why? Because after 20 years there is absolutely no evidence supporting a controlled demolition.

Now if you want to discuss how the buildings collapsed due to plane impacts and/or resultant fires, that's another story.
 
Last edited:

Amber Robot

Active Member
It is hard to understand how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed, and it would be much easier if demolition were involved.
This idea that it would be much easier to explain if demolition were involved is, in my opinion, an unsupported assertion. As much as the truthers demand an exact explanation of the collapse I have seen no model of how explosives could produce exactly what was seen. This is common conspiracy thinking to say that if science can’t explain everything exactly 100% then the alternative hypothesis no matter how unsupported must somehow be the truth. Shouldn’t the truthers be held to the same standard of proof? Please explain or point to an explanation that fully describes the collapse of the towers using explosives. Which floors had explosives? What order were they detonated? How was the timing controlled? How were they installed? Calculations of energy requirements? Model demonstrations compared to video footage and photographs? Are there peer reviewed papers on the subject or just YouTube videos claiming how “obvious” it is?
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Are you asking how much research one has to do before being considered credible enough or worthy of having their position discussed seriously?

If anyone comes in here claiming controlled demolition, they are flat out wrong.
This is basically my question and that is a possible answer. Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion? I don't make the rules or set the tone here. But it was my impression from Mick's book and the general tenor of his videos and engagement with people who, for one reason or another, find themselves "down a rabbit hole" that there is space here to look at their issues rationally and patiently. I could be wrong about this, and this thread is, in part, an attempt to find that out. I had hoped that it would just lead to some insight into how to engage constructively with truthers.

It's possible (and some other threads do bear this out) that Metabunk, as a community, has lost its patience with 9/11 Truth. I can understand why. But I haven't.
 
Last edited:

Gamolon

Active Member
This is basically my question and that is a possible answer. Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion. I don't make the rules or set the tone here. But it was my impression from Mick's book and the general tenor of his videos and engagement with people who, for one reason or another, find themselves "down a rabbit hole" that there is space here to look at their issues rationally and patiently. I could be wrong about this, and this thread is, in part, an attempt to find that out. I had hoped that it would just lead to some insight into how to engage constructively with truthers.

It's possible (and some other threads do bear this out) that Metabunk, as a community, has lost its patience with 9/11 Truth. I can understand why. But I haven't.
My experience with truthers is that the vast majority are set in their ways and there is no constructive discussion with them at all. Most are so far down the "government is evil" rabbit hole that there is no coming back. That or they're just trolls looking to make people angry because they have nothing better to do.

If you present a reasoned argument against what truthers believe believe, most will tell you that you're part of the conspiracy and leave it at that.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Which may have been related to a comment @Mendel made to me:
You have been asking questions that we don't have the data to answer, as if that was some kind of failure; and claiming that something doesn't exist that is a simple web search away. And we have been over these exact topics before! You were pushing doubt where none is warranted. I do not respect that behaviour.

You have been at this for 15 years. I expect you, in all that time, if you're earnest, to have read and understood the 9/11 Commission report and the NIST reports. I respect anyone who comes on the forum and says, there is something on page 213 I'm not sure I have figured out correctly. Any questions that come from working through these books (or any other resources on the topic) are very respectable.

The other thing that is always respected here is bringing some evidence supporting a claim for discussion; knowing that some very smart and knowledgeable people are going to do their best to critique that evidence when you want the claim to be true takes courage.

I have been following the Champlain Towers South collapse explained by an engineer on youtube ("Building Integrity"), and he is bringing so much background to this from engineering that goes way beyond highschool physics. I've an informal statics education from advanced construction sets I played with as a kid, and from really being into statics simulation games like "Bridge Constructor" for a few years, and it's not enough by far to do these types of analyses myself; I'm always going to be an interested spectator with a somewhat shallow, imperfect understanding of what went down. Someome who goes at this with the attitude that they won't want to learn engineering knowledge, but want an engineer-level depth of answers without understanding the means by which engineers arrive at these answers, will set themselves up to fail, and they'll garner the same respect we extend to the pointy-haired boss in the Dilbert cartoons.
 

penk

New Member
This is basically my question and that is a possible answer. Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion? I don't make the rules or set the tone here. But it was my impression from Mick's book and the general tenor of his videos and engagement with people who, for one reason or another, find themselves "down a rabbit hole" that there is space here to look at their issues rationally and patiently. I could be wrong about this, and this thread is, in part, an attempt to find that out. I had hoped that it would just lead to some insight into how to engage constructively with truthers.

It's possible (and some other threads do bear this out) that Metabunk, as a community, has lost its patience with 9/11 Truth. I can understand why. But I haven't.
I continue to assert you're approaching this from a truther standpoint. "Can i at least talk about my batshit insane idea that has been debunked over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AAAANNNNDDD OVER again a million times elsewhere? Or are you intolerant to this discussion and just closed minded?"

Are you proposing there is absolutely any truth to a 'controlled demolition' on 9/11? If so, have you read EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that says why this is an insane idea that has absolutely no credibility? Or are you just looking to argue this viewpoint AGAIN?

The reason the forum is so intolerant of this is because it's been debunked so many times, and the same arguments have been presented constantly. There is no new data. Planes hit the WTC. The buildings were destroyed as a result of that collision. That's it. There's nothing else. If you have something new that has not been discussed or presented, and it's from a credible, well researched, well respected source, then perhaps it may be worthy of discussion.

But frankly you're already being irritating by ntaking this "why won't you people discuss this thing anymore? it's interesting!" standpoint, when we are so painfully tired of this line of reasoning it's hard not to be frustrated.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
@Thomas B.... I am not going to address your post point by point. I will mention a few things.

CD is a progressive collapse...in virtually all examples of CD you can cite. Explosives destroy part of the axial structures... leading to a rapid load redistribution which exceeds the capacity of close by columns and structural elements cause a rapidly spreading serous of failures leading to a GRAVITY collapse. CDs are designed to limit where the building's material falls... usually on the owner's property. Obviously not what we see in the WTC collapses.

CD proponents have never shown the CD design... how and where... What they do is throw out things like... military grade nano thermite. Witness heard "explosions"... There was no evidence for CD.... no CD plan was proposed. CD is a pathetic anti government and media conspiracy.. nothing more.

Layperson's and even structural engineers will not understand the WTC collapses without some effort. Effort means studying the structures of the WTC... examining the visuals of the collapses with an EDUCATED eyes. Anyone can look but only those who have "educated eyes" understand what they are seeing. No one will admit that they don't know what they are seeing. People need to make sense of the world and everyone constructs their "understanding" based on the technical background.

If you haven't learned about the WTC collapses... it's simply because you either... don't have the level of education to understand. Have not studied the arguments made which are not too technical. You come across and honest but intellectually lazy. You want to be spoon fed and have a WTC Collapse for Dummies written for you. ANYONE WHO HAS A NEED TO KNOW CAN FIND OUT. You've been told that because a total structural collapse of a high rise is highly complex and chaotic... you will not find a second by second explanation. Not now or ever. You've been told all the mechanism and energy inputs.

You are lazy.

Someone may decide to write and publish WTC Collapse for Dummies. They might make money from the venture... the likely motivation for doing it. Econ could do a brilliant one. He has helped the naive online for years.

You are naive. You can't see what the "truthers" are doing....most lying, some profiting and lying. most willfully ignorant.... many lazy and naive and lack critical thinking skills... and easily fooled by slick presentations of opportunists.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
But frankly you're already being irritating by ntaking this "why won't you people discuss this thing anymore? it's interesting!" standpoint, when we are so painfully tired of this line of reasoning it's hard not to be frustrated.
Wouldn't it be best just to leave this thread to people who do want discuss this? Why have any feelings about the existence of this thread or my questions at all?
 

penk

New Member
Wouldn't it be best just to leave this thread to people who do want discuss this? Why have any feelings about the existence of this thread or my questions at all?
Ah yes. Here we go. "If you're not willing to engage me on my ideas that are ridiculous and (yes, to quote the other message) lazy, then you should not speak at all.

Thank you for ignoring everything else I said. You're really cementing the level of engagement you're interested in. Only things that support your position that this topic is worthy of further discussion.

The topic here is, and you made it "

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

but you're not willing to listen to the answers.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion?
It's been discussed here plenty. If you want to discuss specific evidence, try a forum search first; if you don't have evidence, it's a non-starter by the general forum rules for everything.
 

Gamolon

Active Member
It is hard to understand how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed, and it would be much easier if demolition were involved. I personally can't believe that the buildings were demolished, but I also don't really understand the mechanics of their progressive collapse.
Question.

Are you saying that since you don't understand the mechanics of the collapse due to plane impacts and/or fire and that demolition makes it easier to understand, that you are giving controlled demolition a miniscule chance of being a possibility?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Layperson's and even structural engineers will not understand the WTC collapses without some effort. Effort means studying the structures of the WTC... examining the visuals of the collapses with an EDUCATED eyes. Anyone can look but only those who have "educated eyes" understand what they are seeing. No one will admit that they don't know what they are seeing. People need to make sense of the world and everyone constructs their "understanding" based on the technical background.
That's where Champlain Towers South was a real eye-opener for me as well. There's this video of someone looking at the parking garage a few months earlier, and this engineer who deals with concrete structures and engineering drawings every day saw so much more than I ever could have noticed myself.
 

Gamolon

Active Member
(But consider: how do we feel about people who think they collapsed because the fires melted the cores?)
How, after 20 years, does anyone think this?

It's either they believe the cores were cut with thermite/explosives or the fires WEAKENED (not MELTED) the core columns.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Question.

Are you saying that since you don't understand the mechanics of the collapse due to plane impacts and/or fire and that demolition makes it easier to understand, that you are giving controlled demolition a miniscule chance of being a possibility?
If the official investigation had found demolition charges or something like that responsible, it would be easy for me to understand how they could bring down the buildings. (I'm not puzzled by how controlled demolitions work. One deliberate destroys the structure that is holding it up.)

Since the official investigations did not find any evidence of "bombs or other secondary devices", I think it's virtually impossible that the buildings were demolished, i.e., destroyed by a mechanism other than the plane impacts and fires. Even more important to me is the fact that the engineering community has accepted the no-demolition explanation. If it was as "physically impossible" at truthers claim, I can't imagine they would let it stand. So, I guess there is a very miniscule chance of it. But for all practical purposes, not a conclusion I could reach. Gravity-driven, top-down progressive collapse is really the only option for me.

I just don't understand the mechanics of it. I can't construct a working mental (or physical) model of the process. Neither Bazant's "crush up/crush down" model, nor the "ROOSD" model people have been describing here make sense to me. @econ41 seems supportive of my puzzlement about Bazant. ROOSD, as far as I can tell, implies a structure -- both in the perimeter and the core -- that is much weaker than I had thought. I still haven't satisfied myself that the buildings could have been constructed that way. And I haven't found a source that explains it independent of the ROOSD theory.

Still working on it. As time and (off again/on again) enthusiasm permits.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
How, after 20 years, does anyone think this?
I think, if you ask a random member of the public who hasn't thought about for the last 15 years, there's a good chance they'll talk about "jet fuel fires melting the steel cores" or "the floors pancaking" (or both!). (By a "good chance", I mean better than 1 in 10 odds.) They're wrong. But they're vaguely right. And they certainly don't believe in controlled demolition.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
well when you first arrived at Metabunk, you said you basically only wanted a "9/11 collapse for Dummies" type book. A year later and you still havent figured out that the members willing to engage, after 20 years of engaging, are not the "for Dummies" types. I know how the towers collapsed and i still can't understand Orling or econ 80% of the time. They simply don't write in laymen language.

I understand being frustrated that the communication skills on Metabunk don't jive with your comprehension skills, but at this point i place the blame on you. If you can't understand what your 'teachers' here are saying, then you should go elsewhere and find new teachers.

It's not a matter of "how much" research one has to do. If you have no respect for the people you are conversing with, they will have no respect for you.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
You ask about respect in this topic, I answer.
But you answer that you don't respect the topic. It's fine. I understand your position. And part of purpose in writing this post was to see how many people share it. (As you may have noticed, you're not alone.)
 

Gamolon

Active Member
I think, if you ask a random member of the public who hasn't thought about for the last 15 years, there's a good chance they'll talk about "jet fuel fires melting the steel cores" or "the floors pancaking" (or both!).
In what why would they talk about/reference "jet fuel fires melting the steel cores"?

That jet fuel can't melt steel beams therefore demolition or that jet fuel started fires that then weakened steel beams therefore collapse due to impact and/or fires?
 

Gamolon

Active Member
So, I guess there is a very miniscule chance of it. But for all practical purposes, not a conclusion I could reach. Gravity-driven, top-down progressive collapse is really the only option for me.
Bolding mine.

So which is it?

You believe there is a very miniscule chance it could have been controlled demolition or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
In what why would they talk about/reference "jet fuel fires melting the steel cores"?
I think most people have a very vague understanding of what happened on 9/11 quite generally. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorists to be wrong about it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think most people have a very vague understanding of what happened on 9/11 quite generally. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorists to be wrong about it.

if you even consider controlled demolition, you are saying NISt lied through their teeth about it. (unless you still havent read the NIST report and dont realize they discussed explosives specifically). If the hundreds of NIST workers (ie government agency) lied about explosives, then you are a conspiracy theorist.

The first step is to admit you have a problem. There's no moving forward until that step is taken.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
I understand being frustrated that the communication skills on Metabunk don't jive with your comprehension skills, but at this point i place the blame on you. If you can't understand what your 'teachers' here are saying, then you should go elsewhere and find new teachers.
I'm not actually frustrated with this forum at all. I really would leave if I were. It may not seem so to you, but every time I gather the courage to face the inevitable insults I will receive, I learn a great deal. Both about the facts and about the positions of truthers and debunkers.

People here, however, seem to be a bit frustrated that I won't make up my mind that they're right. The truth is I still don't understand them. I try not to believe things I don't understand. And there are, in fact, some details that I think some people are simply wrong about. I mean them no disrespect, but their arguments haven't convinced me yet. So there we are.

I've tried to work some of this out by PM, and have made a little progress. But, yes, the members here do at some point seem to give up on me. Most recently because neither they nor I could do the differential calculus that was needed to estimate the Euler self-buckling limit of a WTC perimeter column. This stuff is hard. I totally accept that.
 
Last edited:

Gamolon

Active Member
I think most people have a very vague understanding of what happened on 9/11 quite generally. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorists to be wrong about it.
That depends on where they got their understanding of what happened on 9/11 wouldn't it?

Did they get it from a forum, website, or other venue promoting controlled demolition or a forum, website, or other venue promoting gravity driven collapse due to plane impact and/or fires. You'll know right off the bat where they've gotten their understanding from. I've never come across anyone who thinks fire melted the steel core columns which caused a gravity driven collapse.

For me, when discussing this with folks, it's either been fire weakened certain columns and caused a gravity driven collapse or office fires cannot melt steel beams therefore controlled demolition.
 

J.d.K

Member
Yes, this is what I said above. I can't (and don't) live in a world where NIST (and the rest of the engineering establishment) could maintain this lie. It would make it impossible to teach engineering at a university.
hence if that's how you view things, according to deirdre's, you can't even consider controlled demolition. I thought I might point that out because when I read your reaction I wasn't sure you did.

I myself have no position in all this by the way. I never read those papers. Just watched a few YT video's from both sides and well.. what do I know..?
 

Gamolon

Active Member
Yes, this is what I said above. I can't (and don't) live in a world where NIST (and the rest of the engineering establishment) could maintain this lie. It would make it impossible to teach engineering at a university.
But you're still saying there's a chance it could be controlled demolition, no matter how small that chance is correct? Even though there's not one shred of evidence for it?
 

Thomas B

Active Member
For me it's either been fire weakened certain columns and caused a gravity driven collapse or office fires cannot melt steel beams therefore controlled demolition.
Interesting shibboleth. It may work in your community, but I don't think it's generally true. I'm almost sure (in doubt now) that I even saw a popular columnist mention "melted steel" in passing recently in a column on something only vaguely related to 9/11. I'll try to see if I can find it again. I think you'd be surprised at how many people only remember the explanation they heard in the days immediately after 9/11 and haven't given it much thought since. Or I may be surprised at how few of them there are. I'll keep my eyes and ears open.
 
Last edited:

Thomas B

Active Member
But you're still saying there's a chance it could be controlled demolition, no matter how small that chance is correct? Even though there's not one shred of evidence for it?
I don't understand this question. There's also a "chance" that aliens walk among us. Without this "realm of possibility" much of the mythology of modern-day America would be completely empty. It's the chance that they're true that makes America's fictions (about everything from the mob to the illuminati) interesting, entertaining. It's a logical possiblity. I can imagine it. I could enjoy a movie about it. In that sense, it makes sense. But I couldn't possibly believe it.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
Interesting shibboleth. It may work in your community, but I don't think it's generally true. I'm almost sure (in doubt now) that I even saw a popular columnist mention "melted steel" in passing recently in a column on something only vaguely related to 9/11. I'll try to see if I can find it again. I think you'd be surprised at how many people only remember the explanation they heard in the days immediately after 9/11 and haven't given it much thought since. Or I may be surprised at how few of them there are. I'll keep my eyes and ears open.
"Melted" steel makes zero sense as an explanation for anything involved in the initiation of the collapse, because to go from regular steel to melted steel it would at some point have to go through a "softened" steel phase. And clearly a steel component would fail before it actually melted.
 

Gamolon

Active Member
I don't understand this question. There's also a "chance" that aliens walk among us.
This is about an actual event that happened, has been looked at and studied for 20 years, and nobody has found one shred of evidence that supports controlled demolition.

I guess here's a slight chance that the earth is flat even though there is not one shred of evidence for it and all kinds of evidence against it right?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Looks like a kind of fun thread but I couldn't read everything. I will have a go at answering the two questions in the OP though.

How much research does one have to do before one can take a position on how the WTC collapsed?

How about: a basic level of research on the explanation of how the towers collapsed (which should make sense and be acceptable to most rational, non-paranoid people) and a basic level of research on the work and persona of someone smart and well-informed such as Mick West?

We can see that Mick is educated, rational, has taken the time to look at pretty much every possible angle, and that his explanations make sense. Also they are peer-reviewed by other extremely smart people. If there was a problem with them they would be challenged and either further explained and accepted or retracted and modified.

In my five years at Metabunk I think I've only known him to be wrong once or twice about something, and they were pretty miniscule details (and not 9/11 related).

If a person can't trust a panel of unaffiliated experts and an explanation that makes perfect sense then I guess that just means they have trust issues, and perhaps paranoia, and I'm not sure if further research is really the solution to that.

Is there a stage of someone's research where you would grant that their position is reasonable given how far they've gotten?

Maybe if they were right at the beginning of their exploration and had done basically zero research ('cept maybe watch a few conspiracy videos or listen to their quack mate down the pub) I would understand and accept their position, and grant that it was reasonable for where they were at - with the caveat for granting "reasonableness" that they were 100% open to changing their minds once they heard a true explanation.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I'm not actually frustrated with this forum at all.

i'm frustrated with this forum (now) and i dont start threads called "how much research does a person have to do to get respect around here"

Orling and Mendel insulting you constantly (they do that to everyone btw), is not as frustrating as someone who says opposite things in each consecutive comment (ie. you) . at least they are consistent.

are you maybe confusing people's frustration with you screwing with us, with "research respect"?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Teertskcab Why Don't Cloud Formations Change Much in DSCOVR animations? Flat Earth 4
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
B Claim: Flu vaccine from multi-dose vials Use Too Much Mercury Health and Quackery 19
skephu How much do contrails reduce the energy from solar cells? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
R How much blood should there be here? Boston Marathon Bombings 7
NikTesla How Much Water is there in Jet Engine Exhaust? [About 1.3 Gallons per Gallon of Fuel Used] Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
HappyMonday CLAIM: "air at altitude doesn't deviate much statewide at any given time" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West What would it take, and how much would it cost, to test a "chemtrail" Contrails and Chemtrails 44
Mick West Engine Efficiency, High Bypass, and Contrail Frequency - How much? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
JFDee BBC: "Too much weight to fringe views", says review Practical Debunking 4
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
JFDee Research: Consequences of Travel Shutdown for Contrail Coverage Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West Key Temperatures in 9/11 Research 9/11 15
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Argentina's Committee for Aerospace Phenomenae Research (CEFAe) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Marin B Claim: Academic research groups increasingly beholden to interests of corporate publishing groups Science and Pseudoscience 19
skephu Interesting articles about contrail research Contrails and Chemtrails 8
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Graham2001 Debunked: FVX Research [Fake Web Site] Conspiracy Theories 1
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Thor Odinson GMO Independent Research Health and Quackery 7
Quantumbeliever Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism Conspiracy Theories 13
KC-10FE Identified: Wing with Three Gold Nozzles [D-ADLR Gulfstream G550 - German Research Plane ] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Jason How Doing Research can Lead Both In and Out of the Rabbit Hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 55
Leifer New supplement campaign, "Whole Body Research" Health and Quackery 35
Tybalt ‪98.7% Proven Meditation Techniqu‬e - scientific research? Science and Pseudoscience 6
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
moderateGOP Debunking Global Research TV Conspiracy Theories 64
TomC chemtrails research kickstarter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
Critical Thinker Interesting research on 'thought control'.... how long before CTer's freak out? General Discussion 0
Boston peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required Contrails and Chemtrails 79
Cairenn Global Research People Debunked 1
F4Jock Why Don't CT Believers Do Their Own Research? General Discussion 22
Mick West Debunked: OverpopulationIsAMyth.com (Overpopulation is a Myth, Population Research Institute) Conspiracy Theories 14
Pete Tar Internet research. How to do it effectively? Practical Debunking 47
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Jeff Semenak Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
P What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top