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

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Right. "It wouldn't have been a big enough statement/gesture/excuse to go to war?"
Likely, but not certain. It seemed as if GWB wanted to "finish the war" his father had started and didn't (get Saddam etc.) So... maybe they would leverage a multi-plane hijacking with "only" passengers killed as a reason to invade.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
I know that the official story is that of the fuel. But the fuel is part of the plane...
No.

If you think that "the fuel" that fed the fires that caused the collapses was (only, or mostly) the jet fuel, then no, that is NOT the "official story". What would have made you think it is? Where did you read or hear that?
 

econ41

Senior Member
I know that the official story is that of the fuel. But the fuel is part of the plane and I thought I covered that by saying "heat".
First - my point was to distinguish two very different stages of Twin Towers collapse:
(a) The plane impact which did some damage BUT the Towers both withstood - survived - that initial damage BUT it started fires. AND

(b) Those fires were fueled mainly by office contents and fit-out material which had been heaped in concentration by the plane impact and accelerated in fire startup by aircraft fuel.

And that, in my words, is the official explanation, NOT "aviation fuel". Then the key factor is that the fires were far greater than the office fire scenario that the towers were designed for. In size, multi-storey start-up, plus disabled sprinklers and no active fire fighting. All those are the parameters on which the three hour fire rating was defined.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Indeed, it's a difficult challenge.

Is there an online interactive "physics" website/app where you could build a simple model that others could play with to help understand the points being made? I know of some simple rigid body physics simulations, but that's not enough, it would need to understand stress/strain and general irrigidity.
I doubt there is such a model which addresses the specific WTC issues without re-introducing the same problems that stop people from comprehending in the first place. The WTC collapses involved some very complex mechanisms which most people cannot "visualise". Misunderstandings arise over some very fundamental issues of engineering applied physics. Those issues when reduced to simplified models can be understood by most persons who seriously want to understand. My target is to help those persons. NOT the so-called truthers who are locked in denial at any cost.

And the simplified models I employ are simplifications of the actual WTC collapse mechanisms. This should assist a person who needs to comprehend where all the bits of fundamentals into the overall complexity of the real WTC Twin Towers collapse events. They also target errors that I see repeated many times in these discussions.

The alternate approach, preferred by most members active in this sequence of Thomas B threads, is to bring in different models, different structures. Which adds another level of "translation" into an already complex situation. If the person you are trying to help cannot visualise a complex situation asking them to visualise an analogous but different bit of complexity is probably only adding to the confusion. (Yes it MAY occasionally help >> you just need to be alert to that in any ongoing live discussion. And that is not possible if we are in the "Dummy's Guide" book scenario. )
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I doubt there is such a model which addresses the specific WTC issues without re-introducing the same problems that stop people from comprehending in the first place. The WTC collapses involved some very complex mechanisms which most people cannot "visualise". Misunderstandings arise over some very fundamental issues of engineering applied physics. Those issues when reduced to simplified models can be understood by most persons who seriously want to understand. My target is to help those persons. NOT the so-called truthers who are locked in denial at any cost.

And the simplified models I employ are simplifications of the actual WTC collapse mechanisms. This should assist a person who needs to comprehend where all the bits of fundamentals into the overall complexity of the real WTC Twin Towers collapse events. They also target errors that I see repeated many times in these discussions.

The alternate approach, preferred by most members active in this sequence of Thomas B threads, is to bring in different models, different structures. Which adds another level of "translation" into an already complex situation. If the person you are trying to help cannot visualise a complex situation asking them to visualise an analogous but different bit of complexity is probably only adding to the confusion. (Yes it MAY occasionally help >> you just need to be alert to that in any ongoing live discussion. And that is not possible if we are in the "Dummy's Guide" book scenario. )
Not to mention that steel, and slabs from the core and outside the core was subject to heat and were expanding. The NIST "scenario" seems to largely ignore that the core was losing capacity including the load transfer that Econ shows in his diagram. The core's perimeter shared the floor loads with the facade panel columns... And there was "excess" capacity referred to as "factor of safety....

One thing is pretty sure... as a core column would fail... and NOT immediately cause the tower to collapse (we witnessed this) the redistributed loads were "using up" the reserve capacity and when another column fails the process will repeat in increasing rapidity... and go "runaway".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But why not just fly in planes and leave out the collapse? That would've been much easier and wouldn't leave any evidence that it was a set up. It wouldn't have been a big enough statement/gesture/excuse to go to war?
I'm not going to defend that answer for you, maybe ae911truth explains it better elsewhere on their site. I just found it for you.

Another problem is that the terrorists weren't even from Iraq, the country the US subsequently went to war with.
 

J.d.K

Member
No.

If you think that "the fuel" that fed the fires that caused the collapses was (only, or mostly) the jet fuel, then no, that is NOT the "official story". What would have made you think it is? Where did you read or hear that?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVAzn1Yuz8

Maybe my interpretation of this wrong and I made a mistake, but all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between the theory of "natural collapse due to consequences of airplane hitting" and "collapse caused by a second party" (bombs or whatever the theories may be).
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVAzn1Yuz8

Maybe my interpretation of this wrong and I made a mistake, but all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between the theory of "natural collapse due to consequences of airplane hitting" and "collapse caused by a second party" (bombs or whatever the theories may be).
The video oversells what the Purdue project did and didn't show.
They simulated the airplane impact.
They did NOT calculate how the "widespread fires initiated by the jet fuel" would heat up and affect the structure, and bring it to the verge of collapse.

Their model was valuable in determining
a) What internal damage there was due to plane impact (with the mass of jet fuel in the wings being a significant influence)
b) Where the jet fuel would go within the building and thus be likely to initiate fires.

But that's where their story ends. (And it's Purdue's story - not an "official" story)

The fuel that ended up heating the structure and causing its collapse came from combustible building contents (and also a bit from combustible plane contents other than the fuel).
Jet fuel caused some structural heating, of course, but far from enough to bring the structure in trouble. It was mostly consumed in matter of minutes - long before conditions were ripe for collapse.
The main role of jet fuel was that of an accelerant - of getting building content fires started simultaneously on several floors, and widespread throughout floors.
 

J.d.K

Member
Another problem is that the terrorists weren't even from Iraq, the country the US subsequently went to war with.

Yes, but apparently the masses don't care about that:

The United States did go to war with Iraq soon enough. The Bush administration was eager to mobilize the anguish of the 9/11 attack to support the war. Despite the intelligence community’s unequivocal conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida, the administration let Americans believe the contrary.


Consequently, the United States went to war in Iraq on a false pretense that it was somehow avenging those killed by al-Qaida. A Washington Post poll conducted two years after 9/11 dramatically illustrated the story: 69% of Americans at the time believed Saddam Hussein was “personally” involved in the 9/11 attack. Even more staggering, 82% believed Saddam provided assistance to Osama bin Laden. Both were utterly false.
source: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/17/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/

We suggest that the principal reason that three-quarters of the American public supported the war was that the Bush administration succesfully convinced them that a link existed between Saddam Hussein and terrorism generally, and between Sadam Hussein and al Qaeda specifically. Framing the war on Iraq in this way connected it intimately with 9/11, leading to levels of support for this war that stretched nearly as high as the levels of support for the war in Afghanistan.

President Bush never publicly blamed Saddam Hussein or Iraq for the events of September 11, but by consistently linking Iraq with terrorism and al Qaeda he provided the context from which such a connection could be made. Bush also never publicly connected Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda. Nevertheless, wether or not Bush connectd each dot from Saddam Hussein to bin Laden, the way language and transitions are shaped in his official speeches almost compelled listeners to infer a connection.

Gershkoff, Amy, and Shana Kushner. “Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration’s Rhetoric.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 3, no. 3, [American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press], 2005, pp. 525–37, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3689022.
The arguments and elaborations for this are in the article, which I'm not putting here, since I cannot copy paste from that article, which means I have to type all of it myself (like I have with the above), which I won't.
 

Mythic Suns

Member
Perhaps it's some kind of intellectual arrogance, but I feel I should be able to understand this.
What's ironic is that I've ran into this issue but with the roles reversed. I've often found the main reason I can't get into any debates with a truther is because the kind of knowledge I need to debunk their claims is beyond me, and in some cases will always be beyond me; lets say, for example, The Matrix film is just one big conspiracy theory (albeit one with nice special effects and action scenes) I can't prove that we're not in a simulation built by machines so they can turn us into fuel, and from what I can tell most scientists have deemed the whole "reality is a simulation" claim as unfalsifiable which makes the odds of me, your average Joe, ever finding proof that our world is not a simulation are, or at least feel, astronomical; I wouldn't just be proving the Wachowskis wrong, I would be proving a massive group of scientists who've probably spent most of their lives learning about quantum mechanics and whatever else is needed to answer such a big question wrong.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
What's ironic is that I've ran into this issue but with the roles reversed. I've often found the main reason I can't get into any debates with a truther is because the kind of knowledge I need to debunk their claims is beyond me, and in some cases will always be beyond me; lets say, for example, The Matrix film is just one big conspiracy theory (albeit one with nice special effects and action scenes) I can't prove that we're not in a simulation built by machines so they can turn us into fuel, and from what I can tell most scientists have deemed the whole "reality is a simulation" claim as unfalsifiable which makes the odds of me, your average Joe, ever finding proof that our world is not a simulation are, or at least feel, astronomical; I wouldn't just be proving the Wachowskis wrong, I would be proving a massive group of scientists who've probably spent most of their lives learning about quantum mechanics and whatever else is needed to answer such a big question wrong.

Your Matrix analogy is a bit lost on me, but you're basically appealing to expert consensus here, right? That since there's this massive group of scientists who've spent their entire lives studying engineering, it's highly unlikely that they're all wrong and some random 9/11 truthers on the internet are right. I think that's a totally valid take.

However with 9/11, I kind of separate the "apparent consensus" from a hypothetical "real consensus". I wholly agree that the apparent consensus of experts worldwide is that the buildings weren't blown up. And that is a big problem for 9/11 truthers to convince people that their consensus is wrong. But to what extent does bias and pressure affect that consensus? I think of it like the Asch conformity experiments, where people are asked to correctly identify the length of some lines when there's social pressure put on them to give the wrong answer. With no pressure, it's an incredibly easy task. But with social pressure, people start giving the wrong answer. But that doesn't mean I think experts are consciously lying about 9/11. It's more that they're much more willing to believe something that they're socially conditioned to believe, and that any kind of "conspiracy theories" are highly taboo. Many also don't even know about the most relevant facts truthers point to as evidence.

So to get a "real consensus", I think it would be interesting to gather maybe a couple dozen experts in relevant fields who don't have any previous knowledge of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and just present them the facts and evidence about WTC 7 for example, without telling them it's about the World Trade Center, 9/11 or "conspiracy theories". That way, we could get a consensus without it being tainted by bias and social pressure.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
So to get a "real consensus", I think it would be interesting to gather maybe a couple dozen experts in relevant fields who don't have any previous knowledge of 9/11 conspiracy theories
That seems to resemble very closely what happened with the original investigations, doesn't it?
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
That seems to resemble very closely what happened with the original investigations, doesn't it?
Well no, since they still had the context that they were investigating 9/11, and had learned the narrative that it was muslim hijackers and all that. I don't think you could do this with the Twin Towers anyway, you can't really ask a bunch of experts: "Hypothetically, if a passenger plane were to impact a 100-story skyscraper A..." without them immediately connecting it to 9/11. It would have to be asking about WTC 7, of experts who are unaware of WTC 7, and without telling them that it's WTC 7.

You could even give them fake context, like show them the video of WTC 7 and tell them it's a building in North Korea that collapsed in 1996, and the North Korean government released a report saying it was due to thermal expansion from office fires pushing off a girder and so on. So give them the real NIST explanation, but completely divorced from 9/11. I wonder how that would change the results. I think quite a few experts would say well, obviously the North Korean government would lie about something like that, and it's impossible for office fires to cause such a collapse.

Now obviously no one is going to do such an experiment, this is just something I've thought about, but imo there's reason to think many experts would say the official explanation is not tenable. Niels Harrit and Danny Jowenko are two examples of mainstream, non-conspiratorial experts who changed their mind after seeing WTC 7. I think many experts simply don't know about the most problematic aspects of the official explanations of the collapses.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Now obviously no one is going to do such an experiment, this is just something I've thought about, but imo there's reason to think many experts would say the official explanation is not tenable. Niels Harrit and Danny Jowenko are two examples of mainstream, non-conspiratorial experts who changed their mind after seeing WTC 7. I think many experts simply don't know about the most problematic aspects of the official explanations of the cocollapses.
Or they don't consider them problematic.
 

econ41

Senior Member
@Henkka your argument is flawed because you are making multiple generalisations to support your concept that there is doubt.
The problem disappears if you take a legitimate focus on one single issue at a time. Remember the topic is what do YOU need to do to establish credibility as a truther. And the one central issue you are attempting to cast doubt on is "Was Twin Towers collapse caused by CD"? So let's see if your objections survive in the context of that single issue.
Well no, since they still had the context that they were investigating 9/11,
We are discussing YOUR claim that CD was needed and was used to cause Twin Towers collapses. The technical question of "What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers" IS the context. NOT the whole field of 9/11 discussion. Not limited to the NIST reports. And independent of how WTC7 collapsed.
and had learned the narrative that it was muslim hijackers and all that.
We are discussing the cause of the collapses. The technical fact. NOT "who dunnit". It would make no difference to the issue of technical fact if we claimed "Santa Claus did it". (He didn't - it was Reindeer, Rudolph, TRN>> but that is another topic. ;) ) (If you haven't seen my "Rudolph did it!" hypothesis - ask. It is seasonally appropriate and I can post it in the humour section.)
I don't think you could do this with the Twin Towers anyway, you can't really ask a bunch of experts: "Hypothetically, if a passenger plane were to impact a 100-story skyscraper A..." without them immediately connecting it to 9/11.
So what? And THAT is NOT the question under debate. We are not discussing hypotheticals. We are (should be) discussing how the Twin Towers actually fell down. They did collapse on 9/11 and the mechanism of collapse has been extensively explained. You disagree with the explanations. IF you want to gain credibility here - try presenting reasoned argument either explaining why the extant hypotheses are wrong OR explaining how CD was performed. Or both.
It would have to be asking about WTC 7, of experts who are unaware of WTC 7, and without telling them that it's WTC 7.
We are not discussing WTC7 and your analogy serves no valid purpose other than derailing to cause confusion.
You could even give them fake context, like show them the video of WTC 7 and tell them it's a building in North Korea that collapsed in 1996, and the North Korean government released a report saying it was due to thermal expansion from office fires pushing off a girder and so on.
More evasions. The Specific question we are discussing is "Was there CD used to cause the collapses of the Twin Towers?" and, to clarify that even more in line with the current status of the debate can YOU @Henkka (or any truther) prove (a) CD help was needed (AKA = stated in the alternate - can you falsify the extant hypotheses that CD Help was NOT needed.) and (b) can YOU (or any truther) prove that CD was performed?
And the current status of all four of those options is "No!"
So give them the real NIST explanation, but completely divorced from 9/11.
I'll ignore the nonsense of that concept. The discussion is about "What caused the collapses of WTC Twin Towers?" NOT "Was NIST correct?" As you should be aware I have NEVER taken NIST as the authority. IMNSHO far too many debunkers take NIST, Bazant et simile as ultimate authorities. You cannot legitimately critique a NIST or Bazant hypothesis if you take them as authoritative. Self-defeating re-entrant logic - AKA "chasing your own tail"!
I wonder how that would change the results. I think quite a few experts would say well, obviously the North Korean government would lie about something like that, and it's impossible for office fires to cause such a collapse.
I comprehend the issues of Government credibility and the opposing perspective of conspiracy theorist gullibility. BUT once again it is the wrong topic. The questions are "Was CD NEEDED to cause Twin Towers collapse?" and "Was CD performed to cause Twin Towers collapse?" BOTH of those are issues of technical fact. Not subject to whether Governments lie or conspiracy theorists cannot think clearly.
Now obviously no one is going to do such an experiment,
What are you trying to prove by your experiment? That Governments sometimes lie? (And note that I sidestepped the usual lie by implication "Government always lie!"
this is just something I've thought about, but imo there's reason to think many experts would say the official explanation is not tenable.
If you want to debate THAT topic - then OP a thread. And don't dare to use off-topic technical arguments in the debate which may follow.
Niels Harrit and Danny Jowenko are two examples of mainstream, non-conspiratorial experts who changed their mind after seeing WTC 7.
I should ignore the two false claims to authority - the discussion is NOT about WTC7. Nor is it about the credibility of either Harrit or Jowenko. BUT we know that Harrit is a technically incompetent CT and Jowenko was deceived - set up. And we can discuss either or both of those two false assertions in another thread. They are not legitimate derails from the current topic you should be focussing on. Which, by the way, is "

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

And my suggestion is that YOU try to gain respect by presenting a clear focused and reasoned argument to support ONE issue of 9/11 truth. Why not lead with your main topic - the cause of the Twin Towers collapses? Address THAT topic and stop the circling evasions, irrelevancies and obscuring fog of false generalisations.
I think many experts simply don't know about the most problematic aspects of the official explanations of the collapses.
Then STOP going round in vaguely defined circles. List the specific issues YOU claim are "problematic". Chose one of them (one at a time) and pursue it.
 
Last edited:

MapperGuy

Member
It would help the Truther cause if they could provide positive information, not just repeatedly saying "everybody else is wrong".
If explosives were placed in the Twin Towers and WTC7 when was it put there? Who placed it, have any of those responsible come forward?
What type of explosives, where was it made, what was the chain of custody between manufacture and it being hidden in the buildings?
The complex Truther story would have generated a chain of people and organizations doing this or that activity before 9/11.
There should records, of one form or another, that reveal pieces of the plot as it was being developed, are there?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It would help the Truther cause if they could provide positive information, not just repeatedly saying "everybody else is wrong".
It's the same deal as with the Flat Earthers: globe science is wrong, but the FEers don't even have a working map.

Their goal is to discredit established science, not to promote an actual truth. They want to play up people's fears, anxieties, uncertainties, and doubt. That's why conspiracy theories are often mentally detrimental to those who fall for them.
 

econ41

Senior Member
It would help the Truther cause if they could provide positive information, not just repeatedly saying "everybody else is wrong".
They are missing one key issue. A reasoned argument that proves their claims. And that clear, reasoned argument has to prove two fundamental bits of fact which are:
1) Proof that CD was needed. It wasn't. So "falsify the extant hypotheses" - i.e. prove that the "extant hypotheses" are false. Because those hypotheses including the "official" NIST example explain why the towers collapsed and did NOT need "help" from CD; AND
2) Proof that CD was performed. There is not a single valid truther explanation of HOW CD could have caused the observed collapses of two "Twin Towers" Not one!
If explosives were placed in the Twin Towers and WTC7 when was it put there? Who placed it, have any of those responsible come forward?
What type of explosives, where was it made, what was the chain of custody between manufacture and it being hidden in the buildings?
Go back two steps to the actual starting premises. (1) Two "twin Towers" collapsed; (2) The actually observed mechanism of collapse has been explained and can be explained to the understanding of a high school student who has some aptitude for physics and is both honest and prepared to learn. Current active truthers fail all three of those criteria. Especially "honest" and "willing to learn".

The complex Truther story would have generated a chain of people and organizations doing this or that activity before 9/11.
There should records, of one form or another, that reveal pieces of the plot as it was being developed, are there?
None of that applies for the simple reasons there was no need for CD and nobody performed any CD. (And, yes, there is a bit of logical overlap between those two.) (i.e. it allows for someone attempting CD even tho it was NOT needed.)

The burden of proof lies with the truthers. Any truther wanting to gain respect needs to earn it by at least attempting honest reasoned argument in support of at least one clearly defined claim.

And it is very hard to offer "proof" of something that didn't happen. Wasn't needed. Wasn't performed. And is only supported by the real claim "I don't understand physics!"
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Banned
Banned
It would help the Truther cause if they could provide positive information, not just repeatedly saying "everybody else is wrong".
If explosives were placed in the Twin Towers and WTC7 when was it put there? Who placed it, have any of those responsible come forward?
What type of explosives, where was it made, what was the chain of custody between manufacture and it being hidden in the buildings?
The complex Truther story would have generated a chain of people and organizations doing this or that activity before 9/11.
There should records, of one form or another, that reveal pieces of the plot as it was being developed, are there?
This is like finding a body with gunshot wounds, and then demanding to see the receipt of the gun purchase.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I fail to see the logic of positing some unnamed group whose cunning and malevolent plan is "let's plant explosives throughout these buildings, but we won't detonate them until a certain number of minutes after we crash a couple of large hijacked planes into them. And we will start the detonation in just that section where the planes hit, wherever that turns out to be."

C'mon now! There's something about that scenario that one might find in a Superman comic book, but I'm continually surprised that adults take it seriously. You can't discuss explosive demolition and ignore the fact that two fuel-laden aircraft hit the buildings.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
..."let's plant explosives throughout these buildings, but we won't detonate them until a certain number of minutes after we crash a couple of large hijacked planes into them. And we will start the detonation in just that section where the planes hit, wherever that turns out to be."

...You can't discuss explosive demolition and ignore the fact that two fuel-laden aircraft hit the buildings.
I think that is an insufficiently appreciated point -- WHY the planes, if CD was going to bring down the buildings? Destroying skyscrapers full of people by bombs would seem to accomplish everything the terrorist might desire. Adding planes is an unnecessary complication if you have the buildings rigged to come down by demolition charges and involving multiple planes multiplies the possible things that can go wrong. If one plane misses its attempt to ram, or the flight is cancelled, you have a surviving building full of CD charges to give the secret away. Do you set those off anyway, even if the plane does not hit? THAT gives the secret away. What if CD charges are found the day before, you can't push your schedule ahead because for some reason you have included planes in your plan and you don't control their schedule! Where is the fourth building full of CD charges that was supposed to be hit by the fourth plane? They've never been found, and were never set off.

To me, one of the things that CT adherents would need to do in order to be taken more seriously is to move away from "anomaly hunting," which looks like a hunt for things not understood by the theorist in the hopes that "I don't understand" = "conspiracy proved," and look more holistically at the whole event -- looking at EVERYTHING that happened (including the planes being involved at all), does the CD hypothesis make sense. I come down on "No," to be taken more seriously CTers would need to make a reasoned case for "Yes," instead of just hunting anomalies in the evidence.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
I fail to see the logic of positing some unnamed group whose cunning and malevolent plan is "let's plant explosives throughout these buildings, but we won't detonate them until a certain number of minutes after we crash a couple of large hijacked planes into them. And we will start the detonation in just that section where the planes hit, wherever that turns out to be."

C'mon now! There's something about that scenario that one might find in a Superman comic book, but I'm continually surprised that adults take it seriously. You can't discuss explosive demolition and ignore the fact that two fuel-laden aircraft hit the buildings.
That is a totally fair and understandable take... But I feel like when the other side requires me to believe in this:

[/IMG]

It's like being between a rock and a hard place, with two insane theories competing for which one is less insane. When people tell me what you see above is the result of an office fire, I feel like I'm being gaslit. But on the other hand, the alternative is an extremely convoluted and nefarious conspiracy like you described.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
If one plane misses its attempt to ram, or the flight is cancelled, you have a surviving building full of CD charges to give the secret away. Do you set those off anyway, even if the plane does not hit? THAT gives the secret away.
Apparently not, as you can have a skyscraper drop straight down in broad daylight without a plane hitting it, and people will still believe it.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
This is like finding a body with gunshot wounds, and then demanding to see the receipt of the gun purchase.
No.
There is no "body with gunshot wounds". By which I mean: There is no building with damage from explosives.

If you want to claim the buildings were brought down with explosives absent any recorded damage attributable to explosives the way gunshot wounds are attributable to gunshots, and absent any bullets, absent any gun, absent any gunner, it is your heavy burden to present a plausible, viable theory of how explosive demolition was (not "could have been"; "was"!) employed, that survives contact with the confluence of extant evidence; that explains both the collapses of all towers by means of explosived and the complete lack of evidence of explosives and any effects other than initiating collapse.

The thing is: we are told that thousands of engineers and architects, hundreds or thousands of scientists and millions of other concerned citizens ("Truthers") have been paying attention to your evidence and known there was foul play - and yet, after more than 2 decades, they have failed to produce any actual, testable theiry at all. Instead, this community has produced bogus "science" of the sort produced by guys like Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and Leroy Hulsey - "science" they failed to properly publish in real science venues.
And the "Truthers", or many of them - believe those frauds.
What's worse: There is a lot of fighting among Truthers - many factions, deep-running schisms, where one denomination of the "Truth Movement" clearly sees the caziness of the other denominations.
Even worse: a shocking percentage of Truthers turns out to be ideological extremists (antisemitism is extremely popular there).
Does this look to you like a clesr-eyed scientific community with legitimate grievances?

No. It's a cult.

There is an extremely heavy burden for your side to lift in terms of developing a theory that is specific, coherent and consistent with ALL the evidence for anyone else (99.9% of scientists, engineers, historians...) to just raise an eye.

You need not do polls.

You need to produce an actual theory.
No one asked you present receipts of the explosive charges purchases.
Just tell us a plausible story that is not entirely made up from fantasy: where were they installed? How many, what types, what charge sizes, how were they installed, by whom, when, by what means were they detonated - and how come they left none of the tell-tale evidence like sounds of explosions recorded that are actually consistent with explosive demolition?

---

Tl;dr: Truthers need not appeal to the incredulity of the vast majority of dverybody. There has been enough time, and there are are enough Truthers to go to work and present a specific, testable theory consistent with all evidence. The fact that thousands of, so we are told, competent people could not come up with a theory is good enough reason for all the rest to ignore them.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...

It's like being between a rock and a hard place, with two insane theories competing for which one is less insane. When people tell me what you see above is the result of an office fire, I feel like I'm being gaslit. But on the other hand, the alternative is an extremely convoluted and nefarious conspiracy like you described.
You pretend that there exists a theory on your side. But that's totally false! Truthers have no theory! None!

Your personal feeling of insecurity because your intuition is confused simply is no persuasive argument for anyone at all.
Can you perceive the utter meaninglessness of you plea?
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Apparently not, as you can have a skyscraper drop straight down in broad daylight without a plane hitting it, and people will still believe it.
That building had been on fire for hours when it collapsed. This is 100% certain.
Fire is extremely well known as a huge hazard to buildings. In the course of humanity, I am sure that more than ten million buildings have been accidentally destroyed by fires. It's like d'uh. It's why steel is fire-proofed. It's why no structural engineer will certify even a fire-proofed a steel structure for any fire of any duration - ratings are typucally for 2 or 3 hours. Not 7. Today, every day, somewhere some steel-frame structure is being destroyed by a fire much shorter and less severe than the HUGE infernos that swept through a dozen of acres of office space, with no sprinkler water, no firefighting at all.

On the other hand, there simply is ZERO evidence of demolition devices having been present or used. Zero. None. Zip. No sounds of explosions consistent with explosive demolition. No wiring. No debris with material signs of the use of demolition charges. None. At. All

You argue from incredulity.
That's wholly unpersuasive.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The topic is "How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here?" not how the towers fell.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
No.
There is no "body with gunshot wounds".
I mean that from my point of view, it's like asking for gun purchase receipts when you have a body with gunshot wounds. Obviously I know that people here don't agree. But from my point of view, asking for a paper trail of where the explosives were manufactured is pretty silly and pointless. Also, paper shredders exist.
No. It's a cult.
I think one major thing that differentiates cults from normal beliefs and religions is that you face social ostracisation if you leave. In my case, I don't belong to any truther group, have no truther friends afaik, and have never talked about this to anyone in real life. I don't go to truther meet-ups where the discourage me from socialising with non-truthers or anything like that. Worst cult ever!

On the other hand, it could be argued you face social ostracisation if you question the official story. You're labeled a conspiracy theorist, unpatriotic, anti-American, and so on. This relates to what I said above about the expert consensus on this probably being biased.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Apparently not, as you can have a skyscraper drop straight down in broad daylight without a plane hitting it, and people will still believe it.
So one more thing to add to the list of things truthers need to do to get any respect around here would be to stop this sort argument from incredulity and argue from evidence and facts.
 

econ41

Senior Member
So one more thing to add to the list of things truthers need to do to get any respect around here would be to stop this sort argument from incredulity and argue from evidence and facts.
And, IF he wants to gain credibility, he should follow my several times repeated advice. Focus on ONE claim at a time. And present a reasoned argument supporting THAT specific claim. STOP his persistent evasions by making generalised comments about a diverse range of other topics.

The status of debate for Twin Towers collapse explanations is simple as both I and Oystein have said explicitly and others have agreed:
1) The extant hypotheses show that there was no need for CD "help". No truther has legitimately falsified that hypothesis. @Henkka has made no attempt to falsify it. AND
2) No truther has presented a plausible hypothesis showing that CD was performed.

AND the fact that @Henkka does not understand the reasons why the NIST simulation of WTC7 collapse does not "look like" the real event has nothing to do with explaining Twin Towers collapses. IF he is genuine and wants to learn why the NIST WTC7 sim does not visually resemble the real event collapse of WTC7 he can OP a thread. OR, if he wants to stay on the topic, present valid explanation of why WTC7 fell the way it did AND why NIST looks different. Credibility will come from the presentation of legitimate reasoned arguments. Not persistent scattered and irrelevant half-truths.

The way to gain credibility is by presenting reasoned explanations. And ceasing the persistent debating trick of multiple evasions.

The on-topic answer to the OP question has been presented many times. The way to gain credibility is by presenting reasoned arguments AND avoiding reliance on evasions and other debating tricks.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Where is the fourth building full of CD charges that was supposed to be hit by the fourth plane? They've never been found, and were never set off.
Clear evidence of a government cover-up, the truther thinks.
To me, one of the things that CT adherents would need to do in order to be taken more seriously is to move away from "anomaly hunting," which looks like a hunt for things not understood by the theorist in the hopes that "I don't understand" = "conspiracy proved," and look more holistically at the whole event -- looking at EVERYTHING that happened (including the planes being involved at all), does the CD hypothesis make sense. I come
WTC7 had extensive damage from falling debris, the debris started large fires on several floors that the fire department was unable to fight, the building showed clear signs of structural damage like noises and bulging, an engineer was consulted who pronounced the building unstable and likely to collapse, then it did collapse, but because the collapse looks like a CD collapse to @Henkka, it has got to be CD despite the lead-up evidence to the fire and lack of evidence for demolition, and despite the fact that the manner of collapse of a building is determined by the damage it sustains and not by how that damage comes to be.

@Henkka looks "holistically" at everything, but discards everything that doesn't fit the belief they're invested in. Every "CT adherent" does this, while believing what it's what we do. No amount of "research" changes this pattern of thinking.
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
On the other hand, it could be argued you face social ostracisation if you question the official story. You're labeled a conspiracy theorist,
Not so. There was a time (much closer to the events) to ask questions of all sorts. The problem arises when the questions were all asked and thoroughly answered by expert analysts, again and again, and some people declared their disbelief but did not present a more plausible fact-based counter-scenario. You seem to be falling into that hole. If you don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist, don't act like one.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I mean that from my point of view, it's like asking for gun purchase receipts when you have a body with gunshot wounds.
But why on earth do you mean that?!? What is the equivalent situation wrt the towers, that you found through research and want to be awarded with respect for?
Again, there is no body with gunshot wouds - there is no building with obvious "wounds" (damage) from any sort of demolition device.

...from my point of view, asking for a paper trail of where the explosives were manufactured is pretty silly and pointless.
But nobodxy asked you for a paper trail of something specific like "of where the explosives were manufactured". What you have been asked is to produce SOME records that support SOME sufficiently specific narrative.

Also, paper shredders exist.
This is an unspecific, pre-emptivekill-it-all excuse to dismiss the perfectly valid criticism that you have ZERO evidence for your ZERO theories.
Such antics will continue to erode any remnants of respect you may still have. Is tis your excuse not to do any research at all?

I think one major thing that differentiates cults from normal beliefs and religions is that you face social ostracisation if you leave. In my case, I don't belong to any truther group, have no truther friends afaik, and have never talked about this to anyone in real life. I don't go to truther meet-ups where the discourage me from socialising with non-truthers or anything like that. Worst cult ever!

On the other hand, it could be argued you face social ostracisation if you question the official story. You're labeled a conspiracy theorist, unpatriotic, anti-American, and so on. This relates to what I said above about the expert consensus on this probably being biased.
It's highly typical that you attach yourself to the least important thing I wrote and totally, 100% IGNORED the substantial answersI gave to your question of what amount of research it would take to get some respect around here. To quote myself - I wish you would address that advice rather than the quip:

If you want to claim the buildings were brought down with explosives absent any recorded damage attributable to explosives the way gunshot wounds are attributable to gunshots, and absent any bullets, absent any gun, absent any gunner, it is your heavy burden to present a plausible, viable theory of how explosive demolition was (not "could have been"; "was"!) employed, that survives contact with the confluence of extant evidence; that explains both the collapses of all towers by means of explosived and the complete lack of evidence of explosives and any effects other than initiating collapse.
...
There is an extremely heavy burden for your side to lift in terms of developing a theory that is specific, coherent and consistent with ALL the evidence for anyone else (99.9% of scientists, engineers, historians...) to just raise an eye.
...
You need to produce an actual theory.
...
Just tell us a plausible story that is not entirely made up from fantasy: where were they installed? How many, what types, what charge sizes, how were they installed, by whom, when, by what means were they detonated - and how come they left none of the tell-tale evidence like sounds of explosions recorded that are actually consistent with explosive demolition?

---
Tl;dr: ... there are are enough Truthers to go to work and present a specific, testable theory consistent with all evidence. The fact that thousands of, so we are told, competent people could not come up with a theory is good enough reason for all the rest to ignore them.

Because, you see, despite having done so "much research" for the better part of two decades, Truthers have so far presented us with a grand total of ZERO actual theories. You may "get any respect" if you either admit this is true, or reproduce for us the actual, specific, coherent, evidence-based, falsifiable but yet unfalsified Truther theory that you can think of.
 
Top