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

[LilWabbit]

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?

Taking a position on any matter takes zero effort. Taking a sensible position takes little effort from the unbiased uninformed. Taking an educated position takes moderate to considerable effort from the unbiased uninformed. Taking a professional position takes great to formidable effort from the unbiased uninformed. Regard the foregoing four levels of 'having a position' as a rough scale. As to the biased and uninformed, no amount of objective research satisfies the bias and hence all research is bound to be biased and subjective. Even if the biased 'investigator' is otherwise willing to put in the research effort, his research selectively explores data that confirms the bias and ignores other data that challenges it.

In the matter of WTC collapse it takes very little effort to take a sensible position after watching the mainstream 9/11 media coverage live. One need not be a scientist, a structural engineer or a metallurgy Ph.D. to do so. The fact that mainstream news outlets across the political spectrum were remarkably unanimous on the analysis of the coverage was a plus. The fact that expert analysis agrees with the viewers' sensible impression is another plus.

And does it matter which position one takes?

It usually helps if the position at least roughly corresponds to reality.

 

[Mendel]

@Thomas B , you say you don't have a truther position on 9/11.

The thing that I see in you, however, is truther attitudes:
• if we can't/won't answer every single one of your questions to your full satisfaction, you argue that it is sensible to doubt/reject our position
• you assume that information you don't know about doesn't exist, even if google reveals it easily
• you are entirely unapologetic about proclaiming false assumptions as facts
• you have argued we should not call out professional truthers who intentionally mislead others about the actual evidence
• your topic title implies truthers do real research

Your topic title asks, "How much research does a truther have to do to", without acknowledging that for a truther, "research" no longer means an enlightened, open-ended process of enquiry, but rather the defense of a belief.

And it is precisely this distinction that explains the perceived "lack of respect". Nobody respects an attitude of "I'm not going to take you seriously unless you share my belief", because this attitude is in itself disrespectful.

Truther's "research" attitude to "what happened" is an adversarial "what are you hiding from me" instead of a co-operative "what have you found out", it is an attitude of challenge, not one of listening. It quickly reveals itself in discussion.
This attitude makes it very difficult for truthers to assimilate knowledge that does not fit their beliefs. This is why communities forming around irrational beliefs tend to foster that kind of attitude.

Your topic title implies that this truther attitude to research should be respected.
My question to you is, why should it?

I can empathize with it because it's human, and I won't judge it because we all have something to defend. Any kind of open "look what I found out" merits listening to. But when that listening is not reciprocated, the respect diminishes. And that's human, too.

 

[Thomas B]

What tough room! Thanks for your comments. Many of you have, if somewhat grudgingly, answered my questions. There is a range of opinion; you don't all agree about what it would take be both a truther and worthy of some respect. But I think I understand debunkers better now than before, and I have a better sense of what sort of path out of the rabbit hole this forum offers.

Some of you think I haven't changed my views about the WTC collapses since I began posting to this forum. For what it's worth, I've learned a great deal about them. Thanks.

Anyway, you seem virtually unanimous in being tired of me. So I'll give the forum a rest again. Thanks for your time, as always.

 

[econ41]

@Thomas B , you say you don't have a truther position on 9/11.

The thing that I see in you, however, is truther attitudes:
• if we can't/won't answer every single one of your questions to your full satisfaction, you argue that it is sensible to doubt/reject our position
• you assume that information you don't know about doesn't exist, even if google reveals it easily
• you are entirely unapologetic about proclaiming false assumptions as facts
• you have argued we should not call out professional truthers who intentionally mislead others about the actual evidence
• your topic title implies truthers do real research

Your topic title asks, "How much research does a truther have to do to", without acknowledging that for a truther, "research" no longer means an enlightened, open-ended process of enquiry, but rather the defense of a belief.

And it is precisely this distinction that explains the perceived "lack of respect". Nobody respects an attitude of "I'm not going to take you seriously unless you share my belief", because this attitude is in itself disrespectful.

Truther's "research" attitude to "what happened" is an adversarial "what are you hiding from me" instead of a co-operative "what have you found out", it is an attitude of challenge, not one of listening. It quickly reveals itself in discussion.
This attitude makes it very difficult for truthers to assimilate knowledge that does not fit their beliefs. This is why communities forming around irrational beliefs tend to foster that kind of attitude.

Your topic title implies that this truther attitude to research should be respected.
My question to you is, why should it?

I can empathize with it because it's human, and I won't judge it because we all have something to defend. Any kind of open "look what I found out" merits listening to. But when that listening is not reciprocated, the respect diminishes. And that's human, too.

Well summarised Mendel.

And sadly Thomas B both confirms what you say AND "spits the dummy"

What tough room! Thanks for your comments. Many of you have, if somewhat grudgingly, answered my questions.

Most of us have patiently explained by responding to BOTH the on-topic issues you have raised and the debate process problems that your "style" causes. You have ignored all suggestions and offers to help. Yet you continue to blame "us".

There is a range of opinion; you don't all agree about what it would take be both a truther and worthy of some respect.

Once again your "trademark" - "if you dont all agree AND meet my standards" I'll resort to insulting you. You have been given a range of options for truthers to "gain respect" even tho you practice hypocrisy as to your own status when your style is 100% evasive, denialist, debate trickery "Truther" as identified by Menken.

But I think I understand debunkers better now than before, and I have a better sense of what sort of path out of the rabbit hole this forum offers.

Again - the "snide comment insults by innuendo" typical of truthers. Why not (1) Say what you mean ; AND (2) Identify specific examples.

Some of you think I haven't changed my views about the WTC collapses since I began posting to this forum. For what it's worth, I've learned a great deal about them.

Then stop playing games. Tell us what topics and how much you have learned and some of us may be able to help you further down the path out of your own personal rabbit hole. In my case I will still try to help despite your dedication to an "insult in every post".

Thanks.

Mmmm...

Anyway, you seem virtually unanimous in being tired of me. So I'll give the forum a rest again. Thanks for your time, as always.

I'm not out of patience - yet! My goal is to help anyone who seriously wants to understand the events of 9/11. Specifically the physics of WTC Towers collapses. If you ever decide to stop playing games and get serious I will help. And that is the fifth time I've made that offer - in three preceding threads, this thread and an extended PM discussion.

The ball is very much in your court.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

My take on WTC for Dummies is that it should include the fact that certainty is not there. All non truther experts agree that fire was the main factor... but there is really no consensus about the "sequence of failures"... ie how static progressed to chaotic. YES some clues are in the visuals... like the timing of the drop of the EPH... but exactly where it lost axial support is still a "best fit guess". And that's because we can't see inside the tower and only things like fire and smoke which appear in the vids.
In my opinion the same applies to the twin towers. There remains uncertainty as to where and what the "sequence of failures" was... and for the same reasons as 7WTC. Of course most experts have their preferred "scenario"...

So... for me the WTC for Dummies should include a review of all (most) or the plausible failure sequences. This may be unsatisfying and seem as if there is not consensus among the experts. And for the most part what the state of the "art" is... is that credentialed published experts get the most "play" and have the loudest voice. So.... well reasoned explanations such as Econ's are not being heard or read. I suspect there is some amount of ego in play to "publish" on this topic (aside from NIST who was mandated to publish).

 

[Mendel]

I have a better sense of what sort of path out of the rabbit hole this forum offers.

I have a feeling that @Mick West is more competent to speak on this than I am.

My own impression is that if you suspect Metabunk is paid by the deep state, and the rest of us are mere sheeple, metabunk won't do much for you.

But if you've started to think about the evidence/facts that support those beliefs that alienate you from your loved ones and most of the population, Metabunk can show you a different take on these facts than what you're used to, and will help you understand the difference between both (albeit in a "we're all doing this as a hobby" sort of way).

Hopefully this dialogue enables you to come to a more independent, self-confident view on things that takes all the available evidence onboard, and that has you following facts and not other people's opinions.

 

[deirdre]

and I have a better sense of what sort of path out of the rabbit hole this forum offers.

There are almost 20 years of threads on 9/11. Every bit of minutia has been covered multiple times. There really is no reason to debate debunkers.

Research means shutting up and listening (ie reading) to what others have uncovered, insights others are sharing.

The vast majority of users who utilize Metabunk don't post. They just read. I respect that immensely.
And if one has a question about something unclear they read, they ask the question. I respect that immensely.

Research is research, debate is debate.
Metabunk isn't designed as a debate forum. Metabunk is designed as an information forum.

It's not the 'debunkers' jobs to change your mind.
It's up to you how to utilize the [20 years worth of] information on Metabunk.

You don't get debated into the rabbit hole.*
You won't get debated out of the rabbit hole either.*

(Although watching/reading other people debate can be extremely useful. so in that way, i do also respect all the Truthers who choose to debate and expose the weakness of the Truther arguments)




*disclaimer: there are maybe 1% of people who can be debated into a new belief, but this is exceptionally rare. That's why serious health officials who actually care about people getting vaccinated, aren't attempting to use debate tactics or insults to convince people to get the vaccine.

 

[NoParty]

What tough room!

 

[3db]

If a truther rebuilt a WTC tower, filled it with office equipment, and ran a nearly fully fueled 767 into it at the same location as happened on one of the twin towers, I would respect that. Because the fact is, plane/building collisions of that magnitude are extremely rare, only happening twice, so we dont have a lot of data to pull from. If you want me to assume that any other than the official story happened, you need to recreate it the official version of events and get a different result to show missing elements.

 

[econ41]

If a truther rebuilt a WTC tower, filled it with office equipment, and ran a nearly fully fueled 767 into it at the same location as happened on one of the twin towers, I would respect that.

Why does the builder have to be a truther? Surely that limitation raises issues of credibility? And the same issues if the builder came from the polarised opposite position AKA a "debunker"?

But probably more to the point why is full scale physical replication the ONLY method of confirmation you acknowledge?

Applied physics analysis has many times explained the colapses. It has also shown many times that there was no need for assistance in the form of so-called CD. And it is fact that no "truther" has ever falsified those extant hypotheses AKA shown that CD help was needed OR "proved" that CD was performed. So how you deal with that depends on where you rank on competence at physics. Either you are competent to decide in your own right or need processes which allow you to assess and accept other persons' expert explanations. Plus the physics is sufficient to explain the collapses without need of replica modelling.

Because the fact is, plane/building collisions of that magnitude are extremely rare, only happening twice, so we dont have a lot of data to pull from.

Be assured we have all the data we need to analyse the three specific WTC Tower collapses. Without need for comparison with other buildings. << And agreement to that assertion also probably relies on your level of engineering expertise.

If you want me to assume that any other than the official story happened, you need to recreate it the official version of events and get a different result to show missing elements.

That may be your goal. But should it be limited to proving that NIST et al is correct? Or should it be explaining what actually happened? My own interest is in understanding what really happend. Whether or not the "official version" is correct is a secondary issue. My personal choice is to never accept any "authority" as absolute. Through the history of 9/11 WTC collapse debate acceptance of authorities - especially NIST and Bazant - has been a regular cause of confused thinking.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

You want to see an example of how misinformed intelligent people can be... Read this quote from a MA Paper.

"In a statement made to the Web site patriotsquestion911.com, University of Massachusetts Geosciences professor Lynn Margulis called for a new investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken," she wrote in her post made in August, which is also available at truthcult.com.

Margulis claims in her statement that the U.S. government's involvement in the hijackings and subsequent crashes of the four planes six years ago parallels that of the Nazi party in the burning of the Reichstag building in 1933, with similar motives: the expanding of power and justification of foreign war.

"Whoever is responsible for bringing to grisly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork," wrote Margulis. "Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization."

Professor Margulis began to believe the government played a part in 9/11 after reading the works of David Ray Griffin, a theologian and one of the chief proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. She specifically mentioned "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions."

"The New Pearl Harbor" presents and discusses evidence that Griffin claims proves the Bush administration's complicity in the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damaging of the Pentagon. "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" focuses on the 571-page report released by the 9/11 Commission released in July of 2004 and what Griffin sees as inconsistencies. Griffin says he uses his training in logic to analyze conspiracy theories, finding many of those claiming government involvement in 9/11 to have some weight to them.

The 9/11 truth movement, as it's often referred to, has come under heavy fire from many, including MIT professor Thomas Eagar.

"These people [in the 9/11 truth movement] use the 'reverse scientific method'"

 

[NoParty]

...Lynn Margulis called for a new investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken,"

Damn...the landscape is forever littered with Carl Sagan exes!

"...official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken," at truthcult.com.

Yeah, sometimes you don't know whether something is credible...
until you confirm it on TruthCult!
(actually, truthcult.com seems to be a vacant domain).

...19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11...

The cave! I missed the cave! Ah, the classics!

I'm being light about this, but I do get your point, Orling:
Professor Margulis knew a hell of a lot about biology...and I certainly respect that.
Sadly, as impressive as she was in that field,
she was equally unimpressive when weighing in on 9/11.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Damn...the landscape is forever littered with Carl Sagan exes!


Yeah, sometimes you don't know whether something is credible...
until you confirm it on TruthCult!
(actually, truthcult.com seems to be a vacant domain).


The cave! I missed the cave! Ah, the classics!

I'm being light about this, but I do get your point, Orling:
Professor Margulis knew a hell of a lot about biology...and I certainly respect that.
Sadly, as impressive as she was in that field,
she was equally unimpressive when weighing in on 9/11.

So... here is a world renowned scientist... who essentially was dumb as a fence post when she ventured into civil engineering matters. She was motivated by the distrust of the USG,
So... Arguments matter more than credentials
Credentials does not an expert make!

 

[econ41]

So... here is a world renowned scientist... who essentially was dumb as a fence post when she ventured into civil engineering matters. She was motivated by the distrust of the USG,
So... Arguments matter more than credentials
Credentials does not an expert make!

Which has some irony for those who have followed these two threads of @Thomas B's alleged concerns. There might be a remote possibility that claims made by a B E(Civil Eng) and no publishing record could be correct AND opposing claims by a Professor of Engineering with both PhD and publishing record could be....,

...

... wrong??

 

[Mendel]

9/11 truth movement, as it's often referred to, has come under heavy fire from many, including MIT professor Thomas Eagar.

"These people [in the 9/11 truth movement] use the 'reverse scientific method'"

The full quote speaks to this thread's topic:

Article:

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method,'" Eagar said. "They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Source: https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2006/9/11/19973114/controversy-dogs-y-s-jones

This suggests that "how much research" is the wrong question, how you do research determines how respected it is.

Article:

"He's a physicist, not an engineer," MIT's Eagar said. "Dr. Jones brought a lot of academic credibility to these arguments, but I've read through his paper and on each point it has not taken me more than five minutes to study it and come up with a credible scientific reply."

Source: https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2006/9/11/19973114/controversy-dogs-y-s-jones

The Flat Earth documentary "Behind the Curve" showed an example of this:

Article:

2. Science follows the scientific method, pseudoscience goes backwards
If it has been a while since high school science class, the scientific method looks like this:
1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test your hypothesis with an experiment
5. Analyze the data
6. Draw a conclusion (and I'll add, EVEN IF the conclusion is different than your hypothesis).
In Behind the Curve we see several Flat Earth "scientists" buy a laser controlled gyroscope to prove that the earth is not rotating. The earth makes a full 360 degree rotation approximately every 24 hours, which is why we measure a "day" every 24 hours. If you divide 360 by 24, the earth should rotate about 15 degrees every hour. In the documentary, they set up their gyroscope and wait an hour, and what do you know, it registers a 15 degree rotation. This is a great example of the scientific method.

1. Ask a question: Does the earth rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours?​
2. Do background research: If the earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours, it should rotate 15 degrees in one hour. A gyroscope, if place unmoved on the earth, should register this rotation if the earth is in fact rotating.​
3. Construct a hypothesis: The earth does not rotate because it is a flat plane and the celestial bodies are a projection that move across it.​
4. Test your hypothesis: Leave gyroscope in one place for an hour.​
5. Analyze the data: The gyroscope registered a 15 degree rotation in one hour.​
6. Draw a conclusion: The earth does in fact rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours.​

What happens in the documentary though, is they decide they do not like the conclusion because it does not match their hypothesis. So they go back to the drawing board to find an experiment that will make their conclusion match their hypothesis. This is the scientific method backwards. It is not meant to work backwards from a conclusion to find evidence. It is okay to be wrong about your hypothesis in science. It is not okay to be wrong about your hypothesis in conspiracy dogma.

Source: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/the-reverse-scientific-method-why-conspiracy-theories-are-so-convincing-9cc43c2dd592

This was great research that took some effort (I've read a copy of the group's mailing list exchange), anf yet it ended up discrediting them because of how they treated the result. "How much" wasn't the problem.

(I do concur that building a full-scall WTC replica and flying a jet into it is too much.)

 

[Mendel]

Research is research, debate is debate.
Metabunk isn't designed as a debate forum. Metabunk is designed as an information forum.

Science entails "debating" hypotheses with information: experiments in the natural sciences, trials in medicine, studies everywhere.
Data becomes information once we use it to tell us something about the world. Conflicting data needs to resolved, and that can happen through debate.

That's why metabunk stresses the importance of evidence: a debate on metabunk isn't supposed to just an argument of claims and opinions, it's supposed to use properly sourced evidence and logical reasoning based on that. Basically, we're debating the evidence and not each other. (Ideally.)

Metabunk is designed for that.

 

[econ41]

(I do concur that building a full-scale WTC replica and flying a jet into it is too much.)

For both pragmatic and philosophic reasons in the case of WTC 9/11 collapse analysis.

Forensic analysis is directed at explaining a one-off specific past event. Not all of the protocols of the "scientific method" are applicable or necessary for forensic "research". Replicability is one such aspect. The goal is to explain or confirm what happened in a specific event. Not to build a new "law" of physics.

(However such could be a valid goal. In the context of these two recent 9/11 discussions the Bazant & Verdure "CD/CU" hypothesis was in pursuit of what appeared to be a goal of Bazant to develop a generic approach to analysing High Rise progressive collapses. Potentially putting Bazant's name into the book of engineering pioneers. )

Article:

2. Science follows the scientific method, pseudoscience goes backwards
If it has been a while since high school science class, the scientific method looks like this:
1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test your hypothesis with an experiment
5. Analyze the data
6. Draw a conclusion

Source: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/the-reverse-scientific-method-why-conspiracy-theories-are-so-convincing-9cc43c2dd592

So #4 "Test your hypothesis with an experiment" may be philosophically not needed in a forensic situation. Or pragmatically not feasible as for full scale replication of WTC plane into tower impacts.

 

[Mendel]

Forensic analysis is directed at explaining a one-off specific past event.

You wouldn't confirm a murder method by stabbing another person. Understood.

So #4 "Test your hypothesis with an experiment" may be philosophically not needed in a forensic situation.

Yes, as far as you can apply existing knowledge.
I umderstand that the WTC collapse investigation involved computer simulations of experiments as well as actual materials analyses, and of course observations from news cameras.

In fact, Newton introduced the idea of using observations instead of lab experiments because no human can set up a solar system in their lab, which made experimental confirmation of the theory of gravity difficult (until Cavendish).

 

[econ41]

You wouldn't confirm a murder method by stabbing another person. Understood.

Touche. I wasn't letting my brain run wild thinking of analogies or examples.

Yes, as far as you can apply existing knowledge.
I understand that the WTC collapse investigation involved computer simulations of experiments as well as actual materials analyses, and of course observations from news cameras.

It's an aspect that was implicit in recent discussions but not expressly addressed. The depth the process needs to go. And which parts of the whole need full scale modelling. NIST did both physical modelling and computer simulations. At various levels of scale and "system".

Also the level of sophistication of the audience. The NIST Reports had to be scientifically rigorous but were not intended for an uninformed lay person audience. And experience in these discussions over the years shows that lay persons esp truther lay persons need a lot more explanation than informed professionals. Or competent professionals from fields other than forensic structural engineering.

If I accepted the @Thomas B challenge to write a "Layman's Guide" It would need at least three levels to cater for the diversity of the audience. (I have been giving it some thought and how it could fit into the Metabunk "ethos" of debunking bunk. )

In fact, Newton introduced the idea of using observations instead of lab experiments because no human can set up a solar system in their lab.

Yes.

 

[deirdre]

Science entails "debating" hypotheses with information: experiments in the natural sciences, trials in medicine, studies everywhere.
Data becomes information once we use it to tell us something about the world. Conflicting data needs to resolved, and that can happen through debate.

That's why metabunk stresses the importance of evidence: a debate on metabunk isn't supposed to just an argument of claims and opinions, it's supposed to use properly sourced evidence and logical reasoning based on that. Basically, we're debating the evidence and not each other. (Ideally.)

Metabunk is designed for that.

i wasn't talking about science. i was specifically talking about paths to escape the rabbit hole.

if you think Thomas is going to escape his rabbit hole through debating on Metabunk, fair enough. That is your opinion. But i stand by what i said.

 

[Mendel]

if you think Thomas is going to escape his rabbit hole through debating on Metabunk, fair enough.

I don't think that. For one, @Thomas B says he doesn't actually think the conspiracy theory is true. But also many of his contributions were not tied to any evidence, which makes for unproductive debate no matter the objective.

The one fact he was really chasing was how the WTC columns fell down once the floor joists no longer braced them laterally, which doesn't even touch on the collapse initiation.

i wasn't talking about science.

You were talking about research, and how that involves listening.
Research also involves thinking.
Good debate/discussion is "thinking with others". I find it helps to clarify my own thoughts and to have to support them with evidence makes them more exact.

 

[econ41]

i wasn't talking about science. i was specifically talking about paths to escape the rabbit hole.

For what it is worth I understood your position and agreed the legitimacy.

if you think Thomas is going to escape his rabbit hole through debating on Metabunk, fair enough. That is your opinion. But i stand by what i said.

I have zero doubt that Thomas is in a "Rabbit Hole". I don't think it is a "believe in 9/11 Truth Rabbit Hole". But no amount of technical logical argument about 9/11 (WTC Collapse) matters is going to help. For all the reasons of behavioral psychology that result in "Rabbit Holitis". One issue is the extent to which he enjoys playing games in these debates - principally by moving goalposts and stubbornly going round the same repeated circles. And never responding to suggestions that could move the discussion forward OTHER THAN in the direction he wants.

 

[econ41]

I don't think that. For one, @Thomas B says he doesn't actually think the conspiracy theory is true. But also many of his contributions were not tied to any evidence, which makes for unproductive debate no matter the objective.

"Making for unproductive debate" is his de-facto goal. Consistent over the five threads of debate I have had with him (Four open threads and one extended PM discussion)

The one fact he was really chasing was how the WTC columns fell down once the floor joists no longer braced them laterally, which doesn't even touch on the collapse initiation.

Correct. But it does - did in practice in one previous thread - satisfy the de-facto goal of going round in circles.

On a less well moderated, less disciplined forum than this one and with more truthers and trolls participating I would seriously be considering "Poe-trolling" as the SECOND possible explanation, Certain comments in PM to me as he left these discussions and two previous threads also support that possible interpretation.

 

[AmberRobot]

You wouldn't confirm a murder method by stabbing another person. Understood.

Of course not. You'd have to commit many murders in order to get a statistically significant result.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Of course not. You'd have to commit many murders in order to get a statistically significant result.

That may, however, be a shortcut to getting your work into a serial publication...

 

[Oystein]

How about we think about another complex event that everybody can legitimately be interested in understanding, everybody thinks they have some limited understanding, but even the best experts cannot model it to everyone's satisfaction:

The Weather.

One could ask themselves: why did that torrential rain fall on us this time of year? Why was it so warm in late February? So dry in June? We have never seen tornadoes this far North - how come?

Some may argue: It's climate change, simple - you see, it's the weather as it's always been, only more extreme now due to human CO2 emissions trapping more energy, so more energy is available to build up clouds, accelerate wind, heat up air. And then perhaps you feel that is a good explanation, or maybe you don't.

Some may argue by looking at detailed datasets of what the weather was four days earlier, run weather models on their super-computers, and the outcome is a fairly close, though definitely not perfect, match to what the weather really was. And then perhaps you agree the match is "good enough", or maybe you feel it should be possible to model more precisely, and so perhaps you'll think that either the model is bad, or the data is bad, or the meteorologist is maliciously deceiving you.

And then some may think that, since the weather is so unusual and they can't believe it's natural, the government must be behind it (HAARP!), or aliens, or God. And you may accept this, and feel that now you really understand the weather.


But there will always be a level at which YOU won't understand the weather, and a little further along the way a level where NO ONE understands the weather.
Now, if you don't understand a particular unusual weather pattern to your full satisfaction - what do you do? Do you blame weather forums for not linking you to a better explanation, or for not producing one on their own? Or do you accept at some point that no one is liable to explain anything to your personal level of satisfaction?

Because, you see, along comes the next fellow and questions the explanation tailored to your level of needs.


Who has standing to compel the weather service, or any other body of meteorological experts, to produce the kind of explanation that satisfies you?

NIST produced an analysis more than a decade ago that was meant to be understood and perused by the national and international structural engineering communities, particularly their leaders, and those who set standards, influence laws and regulations, etc. It wasn't meant for you and me.
I am not sure anyone else is required to produce a "NIST report for layfolk".


More than a decade ago, weather forecasts weren't as good as they are today. by the way. We should not blame the weather forecast for October 2008 for not conforming to our expectations for accurate weather explanations in 2021.

 

[Mendel]

But there will always be a level at which YOU won't understand the weather, and a little further along the way a level where NO ONE understands the weather.

"So therefore there is a small chance that god actually makes the weather."

 

[Oystein]

"So therefore there is a small chance that god actually makes the weather."

Exactly. Or HAARP. Or aliens.

 

[Rory]

The key sentence in this whole discussion is this:

Thanks for your time, as always.

Thomas B. very cleverly started this thread knowing exactly what would happen. Three pages later, with input from a number of people, he checks out, thanking us for our time (and energy and - since "time is money" - money too).

Hypothesis: Thomas B. is an energy vampire who derives strength and pleasure from sucking up the time of others.

In fact, many supposed conspiracy theorists are such "energy vampires", sending the debunkers on wild goose chases and wasting/taking their time.

They gain energy/strength from this - but it's short-lived, and they must return soon for more.

The fault is not his, of course, since he's free to do whatever he wants - purposefully frustrate, even - but ours for giving.

I wonder what we'll do next time around?

 

[Fromage]

...

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.

That's the thing. Modern buildings aren't constructed as objects that you can uproot and bounce around like a basketball. Buildings, such as this, are engineered to be of minimal cost, and be _just_ strong enough to hold up to standing, fulfilling their purpose, and with a margin designed to cover ANY situation the building may experience (within some reasonable level of risk). For example, the WTC were built to sustain a 707 travelling at up to 250mph getting lost in the fog. Not an aircraft weighing around three times as much travelling 2 times faster. Not tilting. not having multiple floors detaching from their fastenings, falling, and destroying the floors and lateral supports beneath (essentially ROOSD). This becomes particularly critical when you're constructing things that push the envelope. Like the WTC. It's incredibly difficult to line up all of the factors, such as subsequent fires, and the fact that they lasted as long as they did is a testament to the original engineering.

[As far as I am concerned, pancake collapse, ROOSD, and progressive building collapse is essentially the same thing, viewed from different perspectives, and has little more relevance than whether you say toMAYto or toMAHto. Indeed, I can't understand why the ROOSD developer has such a thing on NIST as he does. They *weren't* contradictory. NIST's report simply showed that the collapse would start, not exactly how it would lprogress. ROOSD explained the latter with pretty damn convincing video proof.]

In contrast, the various C/D theories don't propose a mechanism that would actually work in the way seen, provides no compelling evidence that it was used in anyway (including the supposed "thermite" found in dust - the testing was flawed in obvious ways), nor a reasonably plausible scheme by which it would have been accomplished

I'm going to direct you to a much simpler demonstration of the importance of fine detail and engineering experience which you need to understand a failure.

On July 17, 1981, the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, suffered the structural collapse of two overhead walkways. 114 people were killed and 216 injured. The cause? The two walkways were to be supported in the middle from the ceiling via a pair of rods, the rods holding the weight of both walkways, the upper walkway only supported itself in the original design. Fabrication/installation issues caused the contractor/fabricator to insist on changing to a double rod system, by which the lower walkway was supported by the upper one - the celling rod to upper floor, second rod from upper floor to lower.

The upper walkway longitudinal rectangular tubing beams were installed with the tubing welds upwards. The resulting forces split/crushed the upper walkway beams on the welds and pulled the rod nuts through, and both walkways collapsed.

Such a simple change that seemed harmless, with a catastrophic result. Indeed, the investigation showed that as constructed, both walkways would have collapsed at 1/3rd the weight they were subjected to, but if constructed to the original design, would have been fine.

[The wikipedia page covers this very well. But *I* remember this happening, and my father, a civil engineer, discussed the fine points of the failure mode with me.]

 

[Fromage]

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.

I don't, and I think few people would, accept "case", "argument" or "hypothesis, as evidence. Evidence is an observed fact. What that evidence actually *means* (when used in a case, argument or hypothesis, can be subject to error. The chemical analysis of the "nanothermite" is a fact. *Identifying it as any form of thermite" is the first part of the argument, the second that it brought the building down is a straight-up assumption. The analysis was (mostly) correct in terms of composition, but the argument and conclusion that it constituted thermite in any form was completely wrong.

[You can't identify thermite energy emission from a reaction when the compound contains ordinarily flammable material and you're doing it in an environment that contains oxygen. In short, they couldn't isolate the thermite energy generation from ordinary O2-combustion of the binding resin in the sample - which were essentially just paint flakes.]

 

[deirdre]

I wonder what we'll do next time around?

hopefully the same type thing.

You gotta keep your focus on the "people on the fence". Most people come to this forum to read information. Just like i go to Above Top Secret and read information. I have never posted on ATS, never felt a need to.

Aside from the "noise" factor*, Thomas and others are useful tools to help reach people on the fence. As i said, as long as discussion (not debate) remains polite and dog piling is refrained from... outside readers can benefit from watching his arguments blow away in the wind.



*The noise factor refers to the fact that there are better more concise and focused threads on these very topics, already on Metabunk. But the more search results i find for "collapse initiation", the less likely i am going to be to click on the most concise and informative thread. unfortunately.

 

[Mendel]

I'm going to direct you to a much simpler demonstration of the importance of fine detail and engineering experience which you need to understand a failure.

Hmmmmm:

Article:

Jack D. Gillum would later reflect that the design flaw was so obvious that "any first-year engineering student could figure it out," if only it had been checked.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

 

[econ41]

I'm going to direct you to a much simpler demonstration of the importance of fine detail and engineering experience which you need to understand a failure.

Hmmmmm:

Article:

Jack D. Gillum would later reflect that the design flaw was so obvious that "any first-year engineering student could figure it out," if only it had been checked.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

Actually it is the sort of error that no amount of checking would GUARANTEE to discover. And a far better example of "Aint 20/20 hindsight wonderful!"

 

[econ41]

Thomas B. very cleverly started this thread knowing exactly what would happen. Three pages later, with input from a number of people, he checks out, thanking us for our time (and energy and - since "time is money" - money too).

Hypothesis: Thomas B. is an energy vampire who derives strength and pleasure from sucking up the time of others.

It is the fourth time @Thomas B has pursued one of these "going round in circle" discussions. (Fifth for me given that on the previous occasion I took him to a lengthy PM discussion - same result)

I wonder what we'll do next time around?

What "he'll" do if = probably when - he returns is easy to pick. What "we" would do is probably same again. Many of us will simply follow his moving goalposts and respond to whatever topic he changes the discussion to. Some pedants lke me will try to keep him on the legitimate OP topic rails...unsuccessfully. Some - also like me will focus on his process and procedure trolling antics..

For me I'm somewhat chastened by @deirdre's reminder as to the goals of Metabunk. Maybe those goals would have been better served if I had forgotten trying to help Thomas and simple chased everyone of his derails with detailed expositions to help the "lurkers" who are sitting on the fence"? In fact there is a legitimate way forward. Those same "lurkers" are a target for Thomas's "Dummies or Laypersons Guide to WTC Collapses" Maybe we should write the book? And ignore Thomas's constant reminders that "we" are not good enough by his standards.

 

[Fromage]

Actually it is the sort of error that no amount of checking would GUARANTEE to discover. And a far better example of "Aint 20/20 hindsight wonderful!"

The point here was that without *some* experience in material fabrication, or understanding loading, it's not obvious. If you weren't, and were of the right mindset, you'd be scavenging the broken bits looking for nano-thermite, israeli stealth cruise missiles, or holographic walkways.

As another example is that my last year in high school physics, we were challenged with three separate construction projects. I won two, and would have won the third - but I found out that precision calibrated elastics have a very short lifetime. The one I'm most proud of is a balsa bridge weighing 165gm, that stood up to a press exerting almost 4500 kg. NO other bridge came remotely close to my strength to weight ratio, because I used dual A-frame truss construction, and designed it explicitly to the contest definition. Yet, I couldn't design a truss if my life depended on it, but had picked up the concepts from my Dad (and 1967 Habitat) by osmosis.

The interesting point is that ONLY one other (of about 12) bridges showed any understanding of structural design. Most were three boxes (ends and deck) that broke at a few hundred pounds at most. Only one had an A-frame or anything else close to a truss- it's breaking strength was a little higher than mine, but his bridge weighed more than 10 times more.

[Mind you it also helped that I flew model airplanes made of balsa, and had considerable experience in picking the stronger kinds.]

 

[JMartJr]

I wonder what we'll do next time around?

"Do not feed" is often difficult to do... but is often worth the difficulty.

 

[NorCal Dave]

It is the fourth time @Thomas B has pursued one of these "going round in circle" discussions. (Fifth for me given that on the previous occasion I took him to a lengthy PM discussion - same result)

What "he'll" do if = probably when - he returns is easy to pick. What "we" would do is probably same again. Many of us will simply follow his moving goalposts and respond to whatever topic he changes the discussion to. Some pedants lke me will try to keep him on the legitimate OP topic rails...unsuccessfully. Some - also like me will focus on his process and procedure trolling antics..

For me I'm somewhat chastened by @deirdre's reminder as to the goals of Metabunk. Maybe those goals would have been better served if I had forgotten trying to help Thomas and simple chased everyone of his derails with detailed expositions to help the "lurkers" who are sitting on the fence"? In fact there is a legitimate way forward. Those same "lurkers" are a target for Thomas's "Dummies or Laypersons Guide to WTC Collapses" Maybe we should write the book? And ignore Thomas's constant reminders that "we" are not good enough by his standards.

I would argue that you, and many others on here, have made a sincere effort to respond to someone's questions, doubts or misunderstandings. And you will continue to do so. It's who you are.

My wife loves to quote some useful ideas at me, that are couched in a New Age book called The Four Agreements. A book she fully realizes is twisted up in New Ageism, has nuggets of wisdom. One of which is:
"That says nothing about me, and speaks volumes about you" (And yes, in a very unmetabunk style, I'm paraphrasing big time).

Simply, if ThomasB is a troll or a Poe-troll or a Truther or just a confused individual, your responses to him help me, and I think I speak for many here, understand things better and may some day help him understand. If not, you were sincere and honest about how you understood 911. Can't ask anything more.

 

[econ41]

"Do not feed" is often difficult to do... but is often worth the difficulty.

"Don't feed trolls" is possibly the best anti-trolling tactic. I learnt the principle many years ago with "pirates" i.e. unlicenced operators transmitting on Amateur Radio voice chat channels. And in that medium the overall discipline was good enough to make "starving them of attention" work.

I'm in two minds on this and similar channels. Because "posting for the lurkers" was always a legitimate goal. And still is to some, probably reduced, extenteven in these late days for 9/11. Remember also that Metabunk is far broader than 9/11 and many other topics are ongoing, contemporary, active.

 

[econ41]

I would argue that you, and many others on here, have made a sincere effort to respond to someone's questions, doubts or misunderstandings. And you will continue to do so. It's who you are.

Yes. A lot of members try to help. From very different perspectives. For myself I don't know which came first. EITHER Who I am is a result of career experiences OR my career experiences were a result of who I am.

Simply, if ThomasB is a troll or a Poe-troll or a Truther or just a confused individual, your responses to him help me, and I think I speak for many here, understand things better and may some day help him understand. If not, you were sincere and honest about how you understood 911. Can't ask anything more.

Thank you. I wish I had written that "Layman's Guide" that Thomas claims to want.