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

[Thomas B]

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?

Like I say, I really don't understand what you're getting at here. You want me to grant that, from my understanding of the evidence for and against, there's a literally zero probability that the WTC was demolished? I would say that, in so far as I understand these things at all, it's significantly more likely that the WTC was demolished than that the Earth is flat.

And the important thing here, of course, is that I can imagine a perfectly intelligent and educated person seriously considering the demolition theory for a while, while I think flat earthers are living figuratively (if perhaps happily) on, well, another planet. I don't know how to talk to them about geology, geography, gravity, etc. Truthers, however, I can talk to. (Not all of them, of course!)

I completely understand if you're different like that.

 

[Thomas B]

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"

Maybe you should? It might get it out of your system. ;-)

But I believe your advice to me was that, if I'm frustrated by any of this, I should just find someone else to talk to.

 

[deirdre]

But I believe your advice to me was that, if I'm frustrated by any of this, I should just find someone else to talk to.

you said you weren't frustrated, so i changed my advice to 'you should stop frustrating everyone else'.

 

[Thomas B]

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.

Thanks for this. Exactly the sort of response I was hoping for. I'm not sure I share your view of things, though. Here are some thoughts.

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 them.

This would require at the very least that the panel was in complete agreement. That doesn't seem to be the case on this forum, where ROOSD supporters disagree with experts like Bazant and Verdure and even with each other. Also, it would require that everything the panel says is clear and easy to understand (not to mention satisfying to the curious). That's also not always the case here. So, yes, if we had universally agreed-upon explanation that made perfect sense, it would take some monumental trust issues not to believe it. But that doesn't seem to be the world that we or the truther's live in.

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.

This strikes me as too strict a regime. Are you suggesting that the moment one begins to study the issue (like, once you have read the Wikipedia article with an open mind) then one would have to be hopelessly irrational not to reject the demolition idea? And that when confronted with (what you consider) to be a "true explanation", you will lose total respect for them if they don't immediately change their mind?

I'm a little more charitable in my interpretation of the truther's arguments, I guess. I understand that it's a long and winding road down the rabbit whole and up again. And I'm happy to walk with them, actually. At least part of the way. Many of them (not, again, all!) are good company.

 

[deirdre]

I would say that, in so far as I understand these things at all, it's significantly more likely that the WTC was demolished than that the Earth is flat.

why?

 

[Thomas B]

you said you weren't frustrated, so i changed my advice to 'you should stop frustrating everyone else'.

And I suggested you should just take your own advice. ;-)
There's no reason anyone should be frustrated.

 

[Thomas B]

why?

Physics. A flat Earth violates pretty much all of its laws and the entire data record.

Controlled demolition of the WTC only violates our observations of the local facts.

 

[deirdre]

And I suggested you should just take your own advice. ;-)

no you didn't. this is the type of thing i'm talking about.

 

[Thomas B]

no you didn't. this is the type of thing i'm talking about.

I will try to be more clear about it next time. I thought it was obvious that that was what I was saying. Will work harder.

 

[Gamolon]

Like I say, I really don't understand what you're getting at here. You want me to grant that, from my understanding of the evidence for and against, there's a literally zero probability that the WTC was demolished?

Correct.

There is no evidence for demolition. None. Zilch. There is all kinds against demolition.

What evidence, from your understanding, is there for demolition?

 

[penk]

Physics. A flat Earth violates pretty much all of its laws and the entire data record.

Controlled demolition of the WTC only violates our observations of the local facts.

How are these two things different?

The physics of the WTC collapse are well established, well defined, researched, and documented. All observable facts point to the final conclusion there was no controlled demolition. There are a few fringe people who speak otherwise, but they are not backed up by science or fact.

The physics of a spherical earth are well established, well defined, researched, and documented. All observable facts point to the final conclusion that the earth is round. There are a few fringe people who speak otehrwise, but they are not backed up by science or fact.

 

[Rory]

This would require at the very least that the panel was in complete agreement.

The "panel" is in complete agreement that it wasn't controlled demolition, and for the rational layperson I would think that ought to be enough. I imagine top level physicists aren't in complete agreement over the finer details of things - but that they agree on things laypersons can understand ought to be enough for said laypersons (examples not difficult to think of, I'm sure).

(PS I've never heard of ROOSD before; seems to stand for "runaway open office space destruction". (This post addresses/explains it somewhat.)

Also, it would require that everything the panel says is clear and easy to understand

"It wasn't controlled demolition, it was a collapse due to fire caused by crashing aeroplanes" seems pretty clear and easy to understand to me.

Are you suggesting that the moment one begins to study the issue then one would have to be hopelessly irrational not to reject the demolition idea?

No, I didn't say that.

And that when confronted with (what you consider) to be a "true explanation", you will lose total respect for them if they don't immediately change their mind?

No, I didn't say that either. I didn't use the word "respect" nor did I say that they had to change their mind - immediately or otherwise - but merely that they would be "open" to changing it (ie, not prematurely set on a particular belief when clearly lacking information).

(Also: what I "consider to be true" doesn't have any bearing on the actual truth of this particular situation: that some disgruntled men nicked some planes, flew them into some buildings, and the buildings - somewhat fortuitously, for them - collapsed.)

I'm a little more charitable in my interpretation of the truther's arguments

Well yes, you are - if you base my level of charity on an invented idea of what I'm actually like.

 

[Thomas B]

Correct.

There is no evidence for demolition. None. Zilch. There is all kinds against demolition.

What evidence, from your understanding, is there for demolition?

I think we have a somewhat different understanding of evidence and, perhaps, a different attitude to certainty. I can be 100% certain that I did not a commit a murder and yet acknowledge that there is real, serious evidence against me (it may have been my gun and a witness may have seen me at the scene of the crime). I can also acknowledge that there is overwhelming evidence against a suspect and yet not be entirely certain that they did it.

If you're with me so far, then surely you acknowledge that a case can be made for controlled demolition. I won't bore you with the evidence that is normally proposed -- you know the list. I balance that against the evidence to the contrary and some common sense reasoning and arrive at a "not guilty" verdict. But am I 100% certain? Do I think none of the evidence the truthers cite increases the probablity of demolition? No, I don't. I think there is evidence on both sides. (I guess I'm saying I would not rule all the familiar evidence "inadmissible".)

But mostly I trust the experts, i.e., the engineering community. And I sleep well at night.

 

[Thomas B]

No, I didn't say that.

No, I didn't say that either. I didn't use the word "respect" nor did I say that they had to change their mind - immediately or otherwise - but merely that they were "open" to changing it (ie, not prematurely set on a particular belief when clearly lacking information).

Hmm. Okay. Not in those words. But you did say you that it would only be reasonable to consider controlled demolition if one had done "zero" research and, then, only if one were "100%" open to changing one's mind.

Most people aren't in those pure states. But it's good that I misunderstood you. Charity is a good thing.

 

[Gamolon]

If you're with me so far, then surely you acknowledge that a case can be made for controlled demolition. I won't bore you with the evidence that is normally proposed -- you know the list.

What evidence? Give me one piece that you think shows controlled demolition. There is not one shred of evidence showing a controlled demolition was carried out.

 

[SR1419]

Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion?

There are literally dozens if not 100s of threads discussing the idea of a CD on this forum. Why haven't you looked?

https://www.metabunk.org/forums/9-11.28/

 

[Rory]

You did say you that it would only be reasonable to consider controlled demolition if one had done "zero" research

Your question was:

Would [you] grant that their position is reasonable given how far they've gotten?

(Italics mine.)

My answer was:

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

Note the words "maybe" and "basically".

I didn't say "it would only be reasonable" - that's not for me to say - but that "I would understand and accept their position, and grant that [I would feel it was] reasonable for where they were at."

It was also reasonable for cargo cults to believe what they believe given where they're at. It was also reasonable for people three thousand years ago to think the Earth was flat.

[and] only if one were "100%" open to changing one's mind.

Yes, I do think anything less than 100% openness to changing one's mind in the face of facts is probably "unreasonable" - though, as you say, people aren't always able to be that way.

If the question, though, is "do you think their inability to change their minds in the face of facts is reasonable given who they are" then I suppose I'd have to reconsider.

But maybe reasonable isn't the right word. Maybe "reasonable" and "rational" are too objective.

Maybe "understandable" is better.

If we pop that word in the question above then I'd say "yes". But if we stick with reasonable then I'll say "no".

 

[Thomas B]

What evidence? Give me one piece that you think shows controlled demolition. There is not one shred of evidence showing a controlled demolition was carried out.

Like I say, it's clear that we mean different things by evidence. You seem to think of it as something like proof. You're familiar enough with the truther's arguments to know what sorts of things I count as evidence. We agree that they don't prove anything. I just mean that there are facts (not in dispute) that can be lined up on their side of the argument.

But I understand what you mean when you say there's "not a shred" of it. And I agree with you.

 

[deirdre]

unfortunately what i'm hearing is something akin to:

I (meaning me deirdre) do not understand the science behind rocket propulsion. I've tried for 12 years to understand it, even though many have patiently tried to answer all my questions and explain it to me in various ways. So because i personally cannot yet understand it and i consider some things to be evidence of magic, i am going to conclude that it is likely not magic that makes rockets launch, but there is still a possibility it is magic.

 

[DavidB66]

Which is less credible: controlled demolition of WTC, or flat earth?

There are two distinct aspects to this: the physics, and the politics.

On the physics side, controlled demolition is much more credible (or less incredible, if you prefer) than flat earth. Unlike flat earth, controlled demolition of a building is physically feasible. And at least superficially, the collapse of the Twin Towers, and WTC7, does look something like controlled demolition. The difference between the two hypotheses is mainly in the initiating mechanism, not the subsequent process of collapse. The main physical objection to CD is that demolition by means of explosives makes very loud bangs, which were not heard or recorded at the WTC, and that subsequent investigation did not find any of the tell-tale signs of CD, such as explosive residue or fuze materials. (This may be why some 'truthers' have gone over to more exotic hypotheses like nanothermite. Of course, truthers may also reject the investigation findings as a cover-up.)

On the politics side, both controlled demolition and flat earth involve conspiracies, and are open to the usual objections to large-scale conspiracy theories. In the case of controlled demolition, conspiracy is essential to the hypothesis. The heart of the hypothesis is that malign actors (the US government, the FBI and/or CIA, the Rothschilds, Mossad, the Saudis - take your pick) conspired to plan, finance and execute a controlled demolition that was bound to kill many people. The main objection to the conspiracy theory is that it would involve a large number of people to carry out a very complex operation without being detected, or disclosing the truth, either before or after the event. There is also the major problem of how to integrate a theory of controlled demolition with the suicidal hijacking of planes by unreliable people. (Unless you are going to go full-on crazy and argue that the planes were holograms, or remote-controlled drones, or whatever, and the 'hijackers' were just actors. )

In the case of flat earth, conspiracy is not essential to the hypothesis, but in modern times it might be called an unavoidable by-product. One cannot now be a serious flat-earther without believing that all the world's governments, space agencies, airlines, scientists, and many others, are part of a conspiracy to cover up the truth that the earth is flat. In terms of the numbers involved, the flat earth conspiracy would have to be far larger than the WTC demolition conspiracy. The latter might conceivably be managed by a small team of expert operatives, perhaps no more than a hundred, whereas covering up flat earth would take hundreds of thousands.

So I think that overall flat earth is much less credible than controlled demolition, on both physical and 'political' grounds. But as Dr Johnson once remarked: "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."

 

[Gamolon]

I just mean that there are facts (not in dispute) that can be lined up on their side of the argument.

So you're saying there are facts that support both demolition AND a gravity driven collapse due to plane impacts and/or fire?

 

[Mendel]

I won't bore you with the evidence that is normally proposed -- you know the list.

I know you are aware of Marc Powell's recent debunks of the truther movie because you have commented on some of them.

Do you feel that the sort of claims that Marc debunks count as "evidence"?

 

[NorCal Dave]

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.

Seems like this stance would make life very difficult. I understand not just believing in some BS, but at some point, there is always something we don't have the knowledge, expertise, level of education or frankly the intelligence to understand, and yet believe it. I have a vague notion of Einstein's explanation for gravity: the mass of an object distorts the fabric of space-time and we "fall" into that distortion. I've also read about others searching for particles that might carry gravity as a "force". I don't really understand either of them, but having worked on roofs and ladders for years, I believe in gravity.

Likewise with 911. As a contractor who worked mostly in the residential world, the engineering of high rise steel buildings is way beyond me, but I understand the idea that all buildings are made up of inter-dependent systems such that the failure of one can be catastrophic for the whole. I've read through most of the 911 threads on Metabunk, and I'm satisfied that something like that happened. Does anyone know exactly which bolt or weld on which exact floor truss failed or exactly which heat weakened column first failed? No, it was a unique situation.

And in reading through those, I find that the vast majority of people are treated with respect. But respect doesn't mean unchallenged and open agreement.

I think if someone came on this forum and claimed to have done years of research into 911 and they think CD is the most likely explanation, I don't think that position would be very respected, but the person would be treated respectfully...at first. Now if someone is beating dead horse.......

 

[Mendel]

I believe GPS works even though I don't know how to build a working receiver. Understanding has levels.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Seems like this stance would make life very difficult. I understand not just believing in some BS, but at some point, there is always something we don't have the knowledge, expertise, level of education or frankly the intelligence to understand, and yet believe it. I have a vague notion of Einstein's explanation for gravity: the mass of an object distorts the fabric of space-time and we "fall" into that distortion. I've also read about others searching for particles that might carry gravity as a "force". I don't really understand either of them, but having worked on roofs and ladders for years, I believe in gravity.

Likewise with 911. As a contractor who worked mostly in the residential world, the engineering of high rise steel buildings is way beyond me, but I understand the idea that all buildings are made up of inter-dependent systems such that the failure of one can be catastrophic for the whole. I've read through most of the 911 threads on Metabunk, and I'm satisfied that something like that happened. Does anyone know exactly which bolt or weld on which exact floor truss failed or exactly which heat weakened column first failed? No, it was a unique situation.

And in reading through those, I find that the vast majority of people are treated with respect. But respect doesn't mean unchallenged and open agreement.

I think if someone came on this forum and claimed to have done years of research into 911 and they think CD is the most likely explanation, I don't think that position would be very respected, but the person would be treated respectfully...at first. Now if someone is beating dead horse.......

I think Thomas is being unreasonable at this point. He's been directed to several web sites, including threads on this site which discuss the mechanism(s) or the WTC at a level than a high school grad with basic science course should/could understand. Thomas can understand if wants to. No it's not simple.. and it's not self evident. But it is logical and consistent and well supported by observations, physics and engineering.

Much / all of the false claims of the truther engineers have been debunked with respect to CD. There is no case there. Hulsey failed to prove that steel buildings can't collapse from fire. Tony's Missing Jolt was impossible and wrong. Diagonal cut columns were done during clean up. Iron micro spheres explained. Melted steel was actually melted aluminum. And it goes on an on. All the truther "evidence" is not evidence of what they claim.

Yet Thomas B still believes CD is a possible explanation.

That is willful ignorance.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I believe GPS works even though I don't know how to build a working receiver. Understanding has levels.

But somebody says that the fact GPS works on land is evidence for it being a function of land-base transmitters. Now, of course, if you know that there is no actual evidence for those transmitters existing and that GPS also works in the open ocean, you might be inclined to dismiss the land-based transmitters claims as nonsense. But that would, like, require you to take the time to consider more than one piece of evidence at a time and in a consistent, reasoned way in order to carefully weigh relative probative value of the available evidence. That sounds like a lot of work and I'm no scientician myself, so it's best to keep the possibility of land-based transmitters open!

That's how this works, right?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

<<<<< been in the ocean... GPS works there ;-)

 

[Mendel]

But that would, like, require you to take the time to consider more than one piece of evidence at a time and in a consistent, reasoned way

I've never done that. I have a partial understanding of the principles involved (satellites with clocks on them at different distances to the receiver transmitting on high frequencies) and that's enough for me to "believe" in GPS, a "full" understanding is not needed (and not possible).

If I refused to trust everything I could not make myself, I'd wear strange clothes and use very little technology.

 

[Mendel]

. I try not to believe things I don't understand.

To be super clear, I'm discussing GPS as an example of how this standard that Thomas sets here is commonly interpreted.

I am picking this particular standard of his because it has already led to a long mostly circular thread about how there is no popular account of the WTC collapse that satisfies the level of understanding that Thomas says he is looking for.

 

[econ41]

@Thomas B. One repeated theme in your recent posts shows that you understand the protocols of the scientific method. And, sadly in my opinion, too many "debunkers" making unscientific arguments.

Like I say, it's clear that we mean different things by evidence.

Yes. And tho there are many things you say I may not agree with you are correct, IMO, in your understanding of the language used by the "Scientific Method".

There are two consequences of the different use of terminology which are causing confusion in this thread (And many other threads.) I will comment on them later.

You seem to think of it as something like proof.

The word "proof" does NOT belong in rigorous scientific argument. It belongs in mathematics or non-rigorous lay person discussion Therefore if it is used at all in these semi-professional level discussion of science "we" need to take care the use of "proof" does not lead us to errors of logic. I routinely put scare quotes around "proof" as a warning flag whenever I use the word for convenience or brevity of posting.

You're familiar enough with the truther's arguments to know what sorts of things I count as evidence. We agree that they don't prove anything. I just mean that there are facts (not in dispute) that can be lined up on their side of the argument.

I agree with what you say BUT there are three issues which potentially can cause confusion. "evidence", "proof" and facts on "their side" (Actually - the related issue of "facts" common to both sides.)
Point #1 "evidence" >> in these discussions we use "evidence" when we really mean "case", "argument" or "hypothesis". Whatever we mean by "proof" depends on the argument or "case" or "hypothesis" which is supported by relevant and valid evidence. The evidence is NOT the "case" and often the same evidence is agreed to and may be used by both sides. The argument is what counts.

Point #2 "proof" >> already explained. Best to not use it or at least be aware of the risks.

Point #3 I cannot remember ever seeing a "truther" argument that has ZERO evidence. The evidence may be trivial. It is almost certainly not persuasive. But beware those global claims such as "there is not a skerrick of evidence for CD" Utter nonsense. What counts is the weight of evidence either way. And claims for "zero evidence" are a strong suggestion that the person is not properly "weighting" evidence. They are almost certainly saying "I (or we) dont accept your argument or your evidence" which is a pre-formed conclusion and not a true statemnt of the status of "evidence".

But I understand what you mean when you say there's "not a shred" of it. And I agree with you.

You are tacitly accepting that you understand the lay person argument and the associated lack of rigour. I would prefer to be pedantically accurate and, in actual discussion, I would probably disclaim the agreement as "And, whilst I agree with you, I would prefer to express it scientifically as.....etc"

 

[LilWabbit]

I would say that, in so far as I understand these things at all, it's significantly more likely that the WTC was demolished than that the Earth is flat.

There is a critical difference between hypotheses that are (1) purely speculative (e.g. "an alien even if it looks like an otter", "flat even if it looks round", "controlled demolition even if it looks like a floor failure and collapse progression caused by planes and heat") and (2) scientifically testable (e.g. "feats of flight unattainable to known human technology", "flat if the earth is photographed from space by honest and reliable people and tech", "loud bangs, explosive residue, structural evidence or fuze materials caused by controlled demolition").

Both types of hypotheses are 'technically' consistent with the evidence (observations). But only the latter types are testable and, therefore, scientific. They are falsifiable predictions of the theory that the experts are actually able to test. And they have been tested by experts. The tests have proven these predictions patently wrong and, thereby, falsified these scientifically testable hypotheses. The purely speculative types of hypotheses are, however, unfalsifiable. To engage in any serious discussion in them while deeming oneself 'scientific' is a category mistake.

A clearer distinction between the two is crucial if indeed science education is our goal.

 

[NoParty]

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?

When I first read this, I was empathetic, thinking they were reasonable questions
for a newbie.

But then I glanced over and saw who wrote it, and thought: "Oh Christ! Not again!"

Wouldn't it be best just to leave this thread to people who do want discuss this?

I'm totally okay with people pointing out that you've absolutely abused helpful peoples' patience.

Is the controlled demolition theory simply a non-starter in this forum, not worthy of discussion?

This boggles the mind. You know it's been discussed here ad nauseam.
Saying something so blatantly and knowingly false loses respect
faster than believing unsupported conspiracy theories.

People here, however, seem to be a bit frustrated that I won't make up my mind that they're right.

I'm not aware of any poster here being invested in you making up your mind.

Now, "I'm just asking (truther) questions...for the 50th time..."
that may grate on those who answered your questions long ago.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

If you want a book on 911 4 dummies... write it. I am pretty sure that the engineers and non engineers who have delved into the mechanics of the collapses, cause and so on have satisfied their curiosity. Most of them I know from online have no interest in publishing a book. Major Tom put together a fabulous web site 9/11 resource... He called it a book.
I suggest Thomas B go here and read for a few days, weeks, months whatever until he feels he has a grasp of the physics and engineering. Truther links are on there as well.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/

read this site:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the...iXRtl3_aypw-1633482092-0-gqNtZGzNAlCjcnBszQ19

 

[deirdre]

Point #3 I cannot remember ever seeing a "truther" argument that has ZERO evidence. The evidence may be trivial. It is almost certainly not persuasive. But beware those global claims such as "there is not a skerrick of evidence for CD" Utter nonsense. What counts is the weight of evidence either way. And claims for "zero evidence" are a strong suggestion that the person is not properly "weighting" evidence. They are almost certainly saying "I (or we) dont accept your argument or your evidence" which is a pre-formed conclusion and not a true statemnt of the status of "evidence".

the bottom line is: if a murder was committed and Thomas was seen at the scene and the gun was his, he should pray he has people on the jury like most of us here. People who understand that neither of those pieces of circumstantial evidence is evidence that he committed the murder.

But i do agree that neither side uses the proper modifiers when using terms like 'evidence'.

 

[econ41]

@Thomas B Your OP asks the question "How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?" Then your post lists multiple questions. Let me respond to THESE to which seem to be the core of your expressed concerns:

But what does it take for you to respect someone who, for the time being, finds controlled demolition more plausible than gravity-driven progressive collapse? Is there a stage of someone's research where you would grant that their position is reasonable given how far they've gotten?

I would respect any person who presents a claim for controlled demolition which is supported by a prima facie outline argument that the truther is prepared to support in reasoned discussion.

And I would grant their position is reasonable at each stage that they "prove" the stage or point they are claiming.

I would thank them if, at any stage in discussion with me, they persuaded me to change a point I had made which they showed to be wrong or could be better explained.

All three of those points have been SOP for me for 14 years of on-line discussion.

That scenario clearly does NOT apply to you since you claim to NOT be a truther and your alleged concern is about the lack of a layman's published explanation authored by a high status academic.

So, if what you really want to ask is "What do I, Thomas B, have to do to get any respect around here?" The answer is different.

Specifically in your dealings with me please don't ask me a question which implicitly recognises my expertise to answer the question THEN , when I answer it, tell me I am not qualified to provide the answer I already provided AND I am not sufficiently high status - viz a professor with academic status and a history of formal publishing. Especially when you asked ME the original question. AND you deliberately ignore the responses I provided.

 

[deirdre]

I'd also like to remind everyone that this is Metabunk. "specific claims of evidence" doesn't mean "firemen heard loud bangs" can be considered circumstantial evidence. As far as my understanding, "specific claims of evidence" refers to "firemen heard loud bangs, which supports the controlled demolition theory".

It doesn't. because there are other more reasonable explanations for those bangs.

 

[econ41]

If you want a book on 911 4 dummies... write it.

As you know, Jeffrey, and some other members may be aware, I have written most of the key chapters of such a book for laymen and posted it on three Forums and a couple of FaceBook Groups. On each occasion written as a base for discussion with a lay person or persons. So it is "raw source draft" standard. I don't think it fits well with the focus of this Forum on "debunking bunk" but I'm open to suggestions. And the obvious answer "post the links" doesn't fit here either....

 

[deirdre]

As you know, Jeffrey, and some other members may be aware, I have written most of the key chapters of such a book for laymen and posted it on three Forums and a couple of FaceBook Groups. On each occasion written as a base for discussion with a lay person or persons. So it is "raw source draft" standard. I don't think it fits well with the focus of this Forum on "debunking bunk" but I'm open to suggestions. And the obvious answer "post the links" doesn't fit here either....

i'd love to read some (mostly curious if it really is written for laymen). PM me a link if you dont want to share in public!

 

[NorCal Dave]

As you know, Jeffrey, and some other members may be aware, I have written most of the key chapters of such a book for laymen and posted it on three Forums and a couple of FaceBook Groups. On each occasion written as a base for discussion with a lay person or persons. So it is "raw source draft" standard. I don't think it fits well with the focus of this Forum on "debunking bunk" but I'm open to suggestions. And the obvious answer "post the links" doesn't fit here either....

I've always enjoyed reading your explanations, comments and ideas on the forum. WTC Collapse Explained for Dummies. I don't think it's that dumb of an idea. I'll buy a copy for sure. Although being a member of Metabunk, albeit a minor one, one might think a comped edition would be nice.

 

[econ41]

i'd love to read some (mostly curious if it really is written for laymen). PM me a link if you dont want to share in public!

I've always enjoyed reading your explanations, comments and ideas on the forum. WTC Collapse Explained for Dummies. I don't think it's that dumb of an idea. I'll buy a copy for sure. Although being a member of Metabunk, albeit a minor one, one might think a comped edition would be nice.

Thanks both for your expressed interest. I've looked back at two of my "On Forum" explanations. I think they need a lot of work to truly be "layman" accessible. They read as if my implicit target was to teach undergrad physics - so the material needs translating down about a full grade to layman level. And possibly pruning some of the technical content.

And all of them are ultra pedantic in details - typical of my writing. Could be condensed significantly now.

I'll give the idea a bit more thought.