So which episode, if any, did they address this on? I don't know anything on the subject, but your points appear valid and I'm sure if they are truly as significant as they seem then the panel won't have a problem accepting them as compelling evidence to say the least.
I've been a bordering on unreasonable hardcore skeptic for as long as I remember myself.
I would never stand for what the "Skeptic" community does today.
"Skepticism" does not stand for a perpetually closed mind and rejection of evidence to contrary of your beliefs. This is the exact and literal opposite of skepticism.
A true skeptic will doubt the truth of 9/11 only for as long as he's not aware of any evidence. A true skeptic would never reject it in absence of evidence to the contrary.
@TheResidentSkeptic I don't think my comment has anything to do with that. People change their minds, it happens.
In your case, I'd wager a guess you were not aware of the hard evidence supporting the "conspiracy theories" in the first place, which is quite common.
What I was actually talking about is that modern so-called "Skepticism" stands for "Prove me wrong, I don't have to prove me right", which is the exact opposite of what skepticism should be.
@SexyMelon Actually modern skepticism as Carl Sagan would define it is the practice of questioning the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence or reproducibility. The word skeptic comes from the Greek for "to investigate".
I accepted the claims of the truthers based on the "evidence" presented in documentaries like Loose Change, but upon doing real research (The type they teach you to do in university) I was forced to reject those beliefs. The evidence does not support them.
@TheResidentSkeptic "Actually modern skepticism as Carl Sagan would define it is the practice of questioning the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence or reproducibility."
Everyone knows that. Everyone thinks they're a skeptic.
This is what I said it should be, but it rarely is. In practice, by self-proposed popular "skeptics", it turns out to be nothing more than rejection of unpopular ideas based purely on faith.
@TheResidentSkeptic I haven't watched Loose Change myself, but I do know it makes several highly erroneous claims. That also means my guess could be right after all, as that film, all in all, presents very few pieces of hard evidence.
Try Googling "9/11 research loose change" for a review of the evidence in that film from the perspective of "truthers" as it is. The site itself can provide better evidence than that, the veracity of which you can easily check yourself.
@SexyMelon It wasn't actually Loose Change itself that convinced me, but earlier documentaries like it, but it's claims were equally erroneous. I would like to see the truthers come up with a comprehensive theory of the events based on evidence that is falsifiable, then there will be something to talk about. As it stands right now 911 truth is simply denial of the current understanding of events, the same way creationism is simply denial of evolution. There are no positive arguments.
@TheResidentSkeptic Then you, indeed, don't know the state of affairs in the truth movement, and don't know of the evidence presented. Like I guessed earlier, actually.
There's no unified think-tank or a court decision to have "one and only one theory", but do take a look at the "9/11 research" site I mentioned earlier. Specifically, the research on physical properties of WTC 1/2/7 collapse is some of the most unambiguous evidence for either side of the debate.
@SexyMelon Actually, in my very first post to you I was going to include the phrase "I assume your argument is going to be that I haven't examined the evidence closely enough" but I omitted it, because I thought it presumptuous. I guess I should have included it, huh?
@TheResidentSkeptic Well, you'd have been right in a sense, and it did turn out that you're not familiar with the evidence I'm talking about right now.
Did you know that NIST did not analyze the collapse sequence? That NIST reports contradict their own UL 263 solicited tests? That "truther" data is part of these reports? That WTC 7 report contains a freefall sequence?
@SexyMelon More negative arguments to support your position.
Did you know that evolution can't explain the eye? Did you know evolution can't explain the bacterial flagellum? Did you know evolution contradicts thermodynamics?
@TheResidentSkeptic "I see you have never heard of a little thing called "The Burden of Proof".."
It seems you, and most modern skeptics, misunderstand this concept.
"Burden of Proof" actually implies that the "burden" to argue a claim rests with someone who proposes it, whereas it's commonly reversed to mean that "burden" rests with whoever proposes a claim that's not in line with what is popular belief at the time.
Hence, "Prove me wrong, I don't have to prove me right."
@TheResidentSkeptic So then, it is burden of proof of any "skeptic" to prove whichever one of the "official" versions of events of that day is true, which one has evidence for it, they can't simply be asserted without proof purely on the basis that some government or some institution or some segment of population supports them. There needs to be evidence.
The same goes for both sides of any argument, always.
@TheResidentSkeptic What evidence do NIST reports have uncovered to subvert any conspiracy theories you know, what evidence have they uncovered to support any official story?
The common stance is that these reports are pseudo-scientific garbage that chooses to sidestep any and every issue raised by "truthers" - except for parts that were amended or added by them, anyway - while providing no further proof of the "official" story, despite backing it.
@SexyMelon The NIST report details the mechanism of building collapse and lists the evidence supporting it. The NIST report is not pseudoscientific in any way. You should read it.
@TheResidentSkeptic Actually NIST never examined the collapse of WTC 1 or 2. Their report is, in fact, titled "Study of initiation of collapse", and that's what it is. There are some very interesting things going on in that part, like the denial and contradiction of their own ASTM fire-safety data (rendering the whole report moot).
Pseudo-science is defined as something being presented as scientific while not adhering to scientific methodology. So that's exactly it.
@SexyMelon Actually the NIST report does examine the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and their latest examines WTC 7. Clearly you haven't read them.
Yes the NIST report explains the mechanism of collapse. If you're too lazy to read it you can watch this: watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8 or this: watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
Rendering the whole report moot? So if I reject punctuated equilibrium, that means evolution doesn't happen?
@SexyMelon What evidence? The structural reliability of steel at high temperature, the physical damage to the structure of the towers due to impact, computer modeling of the structure, temperature measurements from NASA, photographs of the 'bowing' of the exterior columns just prior to collapse, etc. This is all consistent with collapse and not consistent with bombing.
But yes, what is the evidence for any of these things you mentioned? How is structural reliability inferred, what evidence supports the models, what are the temperature measurements, how reliable are the photos, is the bowing model consistent with the report?
Is there any evidence for it, or is simply speculation, or cherry-picking?
@TheResidentSkeptic On the other hand, what is the evidence that could contradict high-velocity ejections documented in the report during the collapse, the recorded flashes and explosions, the physical properties of the collapse sequence, the presence of extremely high temperatures at the collapse site, the leaking thermitic residue noted in the same report, etc., etc.?
@SexyMelon Their goal wasn't to discuss the collapse, it was to understand the mechanism of collapse. This is like accusing evolutionary theory being unable to explain the origin of life - it's not meant to.
I used the YouTube videos as an alternative for you to watch, rather than reading the NIST report, because you are clearly too lazy to do so.
@TheResidentSkeptic Like I said, the report does not address the collapse sequence. It is only speculation - with few to no evidence collected to support it, as discussed - about the events that would lead up to the point where it is "inevitable". What this leaves out is not just the property of collapse itself, but the gap in logic that partial collapse of any floor would lead to total, symmetrical, speedy, unstopped collapse (which is without basis).
@TheResidentSkeptic This is some of the most fallacious arguments I've seen in a while... I'm pretty sure that's a direct non-sequitur, not even a common fallacy. What does evolution have to do with report not addressing the collapse? I said it doesn't address it, and it doesn't.
@SexyMelon I'll try to explain it to you again: The report does not explain the collapse because the investigation didn't set out to explain the collapse, it set out to explain the mechanism of collapse initiation.
If I design a study to see if there is a correlation between cigarettes and cancer the study does not address the mechanism by which cigarettes cause cancer (ionizing radioactive decay) because it was not designed to.
@TheResidentSkeptic "...it set out to explain the mechanism of collapse initiation."
Actually that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Good job catching up, I guess.
So what good is a collapse report that doesn't explain the collapse and just goes "And then magic happened, it just collapsed, we don't have to explain"?
Again your analogies fail to make any sense whatsoever. I don't even know where to start.
@SexyMelon General relativity doesn't explain how gravity acts at the subatomic level. What good is a theory of gravity if it can't explain the mechanism of gravity?
The NIST report is useful for understanding the cause of the collapse. Just because you're not interested in the cause of the collapse doesn't mean it's a useless report.
@TheResidentSkeptic Again, your analogies don't even abide by basic logic. I don't know what you're getting at.
Yes, NIST reports argue the initiation of collapse. They do not explain how, why or whether this partial collapse could possibly lead to complete one, and do not address whether the physics of he collapse are consistent with intact structure.
That was my point.
Consequently, it's a non-report sidestepping the main issue: collapse.
@SexyMelon Yes, my analogies don't abide by logic, because I am trying to explain your logical fallacies using analogies! I am glad at least that you noticed that my analogies are fallacious, if only you could understand why they're analogies.
So you're saying, that since the NIST report doesn't explain the cause of the collapse after it's initiation, what should have happened is that the building would have collapsed over like 5 floors, then stopped? Sorry, physics fail.
"what should have happened is that the building would have collapsed over like 5 floors, then stopped?"
Could be. What's more likely is what happened to every other steel building that's been on fire: multiple small partial collapse events throughout large periods of time, possibly adding to total collapse in the end. This is well-documented.
@SexyMelon There are no examples of steel skyscrapers being struck by jumbo-jet aircraft; false analogy, informal fallacy, correlate functions or properties not necessarily seen with homogeny. What we saw, is what we saw. The question should be to explain how it happened, not whether it happened.
@TheResidentSkeptic Once again: how is being struck by a - 767 is not a "jumbo jet" - aircraft make the case so special as to be unique, specifically, how does it make total collapse certain?
How could it possibly do that? It couldn't. This is Special Pleading is all.
Explain how it's special. Explain how a jet will totally collapse a building. Evidence.
"The question should be to explain how it happened, not whether it happened."
@SexyMelon The weight of one tower, excluding contents, is approx. 154,000,000 kg. 1/4 of that being 38.5M kg. After falling one floor (3 meters) at freefall speed, it would provide approx. [1/2 Mv^2 or 1/2 M(1/3g)^2] 1.585 x 10^16 joules, compared to 3.78 x 10^8 joules of force at rest. This is enough force to cause the next floor's columbs to buckle, hence total collapse.
@TheResidentSkeptic Well-done copying data from that non-reviewed Bazant paper. But shouldn't you have done that research before this little argument if you call yourself a skeptic?..
"After falling one floor at freefall speed"
There's your problem. How can it be "falling" - "freefalling"! - through solid steel and concrete (well, unless the structure in its way was physically removed)?
"This is enough force to cause the next floor's columbs to buckle"
@TheResidentSkeptic There are quite a few papers published on the subject of the attack. About 42 in total. Unfortunately, almost all of them deal with technical calculation based on baseless speculation, rather than studies in accordance with scientific methodology.
There's only about one that actually adheres to collect evidence -> guess -> test methodology, I hope you know what it is.
@TheResidentSkeptic For the sake of rhetoric, let's assume NIST report is perfectly correct - including that part where they documented leaking molten steel, but that's for later - and the collapse was initiated at given floors due to fires.
What is the evidence that such a partial collapse would lead to total collapse of the buildings, given that there is no known mechanism or precedent for this to occur, in prior history?
They called it "molten aluminum" after it's been pointed out to them, unsurprisingly, without evidence. Are you even aware of that part of the report?..
"It did."
AMAZING.
For all these analogies, do you even know what "Circular Logic" is? Well, that's what it is.
"Why do you think it really happened? Because it DID."
Why was the building demolished? Because it was...
@SexyMelon Right, molten aluminium, what's the problem?
Actually that's not circular logic. Circular logic supports it's conclusion with appear to it's premise. If it's circular then it's also circular to claim that evolution resulted in humans since, is did.
This is not circular logic, it's an appeal to observed reality: Empiricism.
It doesn't matter whether the building collapsed from fire, or controlled demolition, it DID collapse. The question is WHY.
Because that is speculation based on no evidence. What was actually recorded was *molten steel*, as there is no indication that it could possibly be any other substance, as there is no test and no theory which would allow airplane aluminum to behave this way... Unless it was heated to about the same temperature which would also melt steel.
@SexyMelon There's no evidence of any molten steel. Only witnesses who claim they saw molten steel. The plural of testimony is not data.
There is an indication that it could have been another substance - namely aluminium. Aluminium melts at temperatures far below what was measured at the WTC site, and the buildings had thousands of pounds of aluminium injected into them at 500mph.
@SexyMelon I just gave you evidence. There was aluminium there: Fact. Aluminium melts at lower temperatures than were measured at the WTC site: Fact.
I'm not claiming to KNOW it's aluminium. NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. The NIST report concluded that it is most likely aluminium based on the evidence I listed. Unfortunately we can't sample the stuff and take a spectrographic analysis because we don't have time machines.
"There was aluminium there: Fact. Aluminium melts at lower temperatures than were measured at the WTC site: Fact."
You're missing the point. Molten aluminum does not behave like the substance in question did. Molten aluminum does not have orange glow, nor produces sparks, until heated well past its melting point (to where steel would also melt), at which point it is super-liquid.
@TheResidentSkeptic In a roundabout way though, you did admit that this "aluminum" excuse is based purely on speculation, and yet it's still used to dismiss any other possibility. How come?
@SexyMelon Because one is possible and consistant with all other evidence, and the other isn't. I gave you 2 good indisputable facts that support the hypothesis that it was aluminium. What facts support the hypothesis that it was steel? I think you'll find you can only support it with assumptions like "molten steel is a byproduct of thermite" or something like that.
Why do you use what you know is pure speculation without basis - "It could be aluminum, I don't know" - to dismiss the possibility of it being anything else?
Because of circular logic? Really? Do you understand the point of the argument? Did you read what I said about melting points?
@TheResidentSkeptic Yes, that's definitely circular logic... Using speculation (molten aluminum) to back up the scenario (means whatever story) that you think backs up that said speculation (which means molten aluminum, perfect circle!).
Do you honestly not notice these things? Your reasoning is ripe with such fallacies. Surely a skeptic would use evidence, not such shoddy mental tricks.
@SexyMelon Again - the evidence is consistent with aluminium, and it is not consistent with molten steel. This is not circular logic, this is a deductive argument from empirical evidence. You need some training in logic.
1. There was aluminium
2. Aluminium melts below observed temperatures
3. Steel does not melt at observed temperatures
4. Therefore it was probably aluminium and not steel.
@SexyMelon Yes, there was also steel... and? This doesn't refute the argument, simply shows that you do not understand how a logical syllogism works.
In formal logic, the conclusion is true if the argument is valid (follows from the premises) and the premises are sound (true). - The premises are sound, and the logic is valid. Where is your objection?
Steel is not molten at those temperatures, so it couldn't be steel either. More likely aluminium, plastics, and other metals.
@SexyMelon If there is all this molten steel, why do people like Steven Jones need to publish doctored photographs of firemen huddled around a pool of 'molten steel', which is actually a flashlight? watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0
@TheResidentSkeptic "Circular logic supports it's conclusion with appear to it's premise. If it's circular then it's also circular to claim that evolution resulted in humans since, is did."
Yes, that is circular logic. You cannot support a conclusion with that conclusion being the premise.
"It doesn't matter whether the building collapsed from fire, or controlled demolition, it DID collapse."
Actually what you said was: "It collapsed *from fire* because it did."
@SexyMelon Again, no it isn't circular logic. You're thinking of a tautology, but it isn't that either because it's an appeal to observed facts. All the evidence is on the side of collapse, and so far I've seen none that suggest demolition exclusively.
@SexyMelon Please give me some positively indicative evidence of a controlled demolition. I will not accept negative arguments like "it couldn't have collapsed from fire alone" - because this, as you may know, is a false dichotomy. It might have been Ancient Aliens. Unless I can provide evidence of Ancient Aliens, simply saying "Fire alone couldn't have done it" doesn't prove it was Ancient Aliens.
@TheResidentSkeptic "Please give me some positively indicative evidence of a controlled demolition."
Absolutely. Did you check out the data documented as per WTC 7 NIST FR I mentioned at the very beginning of our discussion, or do you have yet to get to it? If you didn't yet, that is it.
Frankly you should know many more, including this one.
Plus, why would you reject what you call "negative arguments"? If something couldn't happen, and we know it didn't, it's evidence.
@SexyMelon A link maybe? Googling that doesn't result in anything like evidence.
Proving something didn't happen is not equivalent to proving something else did - that's why. It's a false dichotomy, another fallacy. You're trying to set up the dichotomy of "Collapse or demolition", then assume that by proving collapse false it proves demolition true by default. This is very unscientific.
"Evolution or creation", evolution is false, therefore creation. <-- Same logic.
@TheResidentSkeptic I guess you're not going to apologize for saying you're "familiar" with NIST reports, and yet you can't figure out any references I give to text within them.
Very well, the section is NIST NCSTAR 1A. I believe they describe their video footage measurements starting on Page 40.
@TheResidentSkeptic "Proving something didn't happen is not equivalent to proving something else did - that's why."
No disagreements there. But if it proves that fire didn't do it, and it couldn't have collapse with the structure intact... Then other means were used to enable the collapse.
By ruling out the natural cause, all you're left with is artificial collapse, demolition. Ergo sum, true dichotomy.
@SexyMelon "But if it proves that fire didn't do it, and it couldn't have collapse with the structure intact... Then other means were used to enable the collapse."
I agree. So far you haven't managed to do that, so go ahead... I'm waiting.3
"By ruling out the natural cause, all you're left with is artificial collapse, demolition. Ergo sum, true dichotomy." - or Ancient Aliens. I can only assume this is a weak attempt at an argument from ignorance.
"I can only assume this is a weak attempt at an argument from ignorance."
You have a very weak grasp on logic.
If you want to argue Ancient Aliens, that's your burden and your problem. For now, the only plausible scenarios are within realm of possibility: unaided collapse, or aided collapse. The latter is demolition.
If someone didn't die on their own, they were killed. Would you say "Or it was Ancient Aliens"? Jeez.
@SexyMelon It could be Ancient Aliens, or suicide, or a million different other ways. "Collapse or demolition" is a false dichotemy. If you don't like Ancient Aliens, then how steel-eating bacteria?
Just because you can't think of another cause of the collapse besides demolition does not mean it was a demolition. This is an argument from ignorance.
@TheResidentSkeptic "It could be Ancient Aliens, or suicide, or a million different other ways."
"Well, that man was clearly shot, but it wasn't a bullet! It could have been anyone! Aliens! Zombies! Vampires!"
This is awfully weak. You just don't understand logic. Somehow.
If it wasn't fire, it was something else. If it was something else, it was a demolition - but you're right, it could be demolition of any sort. Maybe even aliens if you like. But it was done.
Argument from Ignorance is "I don't know how it happened, therefore I know how it happened."
At the point where fire hypothesis is rejected, we don't yet know WHAT happened. We only know what DIDN'T happen. And that leaves us with a myriad ways that a building could be demolished - all of which still point to, you guessed it, an inside job.
Maybe by the terrorists themselves. Which begs the question why we don't know.
@SexyMelon Argument from Ignorance is "I don't know how it happened, therefore I know how it happened."
Right.
You said: I don't know how it could collapse on it's own, therefore demolition.
I'm still waiting on that positively indicative evidence. If you didn't see my last post about it, googling what you told me to look for didn't result in anything. Can you please post a link to something?
If you're not going to be reasonable, I'm not going to argue anymore. You can reply to this if you want, but I won't respond.
I was talking about WTC 7 FR, of course. Check it out if you check nothing else, the section is the same NCSTAR 1A, Page 40 onward, written courtesy of those zany "conspiracy theorists": /watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
@SexyMelon Of course I'm not being reasonable... how else are you going to settle your cognitive dissonance? I'll watch your video later and get back to you.
@TheResidentSkeptic "If we only have 1 example of something how can I possibly provide other examples of it happening?"
Why just one? You still haven't explained how this office fire ignited by jet fuel is somehow magically different from any other office fire ignited by some other kind of fuel.
The history of fires is more than plenty. Tons of cases. Unless you can pick a reason why WTC (1,2,7) case is so special as to lead to total collapse, there's plenty of samples.
@SexyMelon Why just one? Because it's the only time it has ever happened in history!
It isn't magically different, and I never suggested it was. No other steel-framed skyscraper has ever been hit by a Boeing 767.
Again, they aren't special, they are the first of their kind. You're making a false analogy between being struck by a jumbo-jet, and a simple office fire.
@TheResidentSkeptic "It isn't magically different, and I never suggested it was."
You suggested this case of fire in a steel-frame building cannot be compared to other cases of fires in steel-frame buildings, and that it would behave drastically differently (collapse like a controlled demolition) to all those other cases.
You haven't explained why other than saying "a plane hit it". So what is it about a plane impact that makes it "magic"?..
@SexyMelon The aircraft impact destroyed much of the fireproofing, the sprinklers, and load-bearing structure. That makes it a very different situation.
@TheResidentSkeptic "The aircraft impact destroyed much of the fireproofing, etc."
Evidence, please.
Also, how do you reconcile that with the fact that aforementioned fire tests found that, even with 100% of the proofing removed, the floors would not collapse?
More importantly, still, how does it make it different to any other case? All you're talking about would only affect the fire-affected floors. We're talking about partial collapse causing collapse of the intact floors
@TheResidentSkeptic Do you understand that you cannot magic WTC to be some kind of one-in-a-million special case study when talking about building fires, and if you do, then you couldn't possibly have any basis for saying "Well that's just what you'd expect?"
Come on now. You're regurgitating old and tired rhetoric. I thought you said you did research, you studied it, you found evidence - but this is just the same repeated old rhetoric that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
@SexyMelon What I said was that I studied the evidence in favour of he demolition hypothesis and found the evidence to be unsupportive* of the claim and more parsimoniously explained by collapse.
@TheResidentSkeptic "Partial collapse leads to total collapse because the buildings were not built to withstand partial collapse."
No partial collapse in any steel structure has ever lead to complete, speedy, symmetrical collapse of the structure.
Because there is no precedent in history of this occurring, the conclusion that it HAD to is a complete non-sequitur. No evidence and no precedent to back it up.
Thus, impossible. Burden of proof is on you. Is there any proof?..
No steel skyscraper has ever been struck by a 767.
And yes, many steel structures have collapsed completely from fire alone, and they weren't even struck by aircraft!
I once heard of a guy who survived a skydiving accident where both his main and reserve parachute failed to open. This had not happened before in all of history. Therefore it didn't happen.
How exactly does this make the complete, total, speedy and symmetrical collapse an inevitability?
Unless you can pick the exact circumstance which would make this fire an absolutely exceptional case aiding the total collapse, you're arguing the arbitrary.
@TheResidentSkeptic "And yes, many steel structures have collapsed completely from fire alone, and they weren't even struck by aircraft!"
Let me guess, Kader Toy Factory?
Roof caving in inside a shoddily-made warehouse transformed into a factory is pretty poor analogy to pulverization of a billion-dollar industry-standard skyscraper, you understand.
Do you have any examples though? You said it happened. So go on.
I see you fail to differentiate between analogies and claims. 2 seconds of google will list over a dozen examples of skydivers surviving without parachutes.
@TheResidentSkeptic In my defense, your analogies fail to make sense. I don't even know what you're getting at.
I don't want to argue semantics anyway. Contrary to popular "debunking" tactics, I don't want to prove every single thing you say wrong, no matter what it is...
So far I see that your beliefs aren't actually based on evidence, but on trust in some kind of authority. In this case, NIST's authority, as you're unaware of most of their work. Is that right?
@TheResidentSkeptic My earlier guess was that you base your conclusions not on the weight of evidence, but on authority. In this case, NIST's authority, despite their reports showing little to no evidence to back up their conclusions, and certainly no evidence to contradict any other theories. This does seem to be the case, doesn't it?
@SexyMelon I just listed evidence that contradicts other theories, the strongest of which is the bowing of the exterior columns just prior to collapse.
No I don't base my conclusions based on NIST's authority, I base them on the science detailed in the NIST report. I don't base my conclusions about evolution on Darwin's authority, I base them on the evidence listed in Origin of Species (and subsequent science)
@TheResidentSkeptic "I just listed evidence that contradicts other theories"
No, you didn't.
"the strongest of which is the bowing of the exterior columns just prior to collapse"
Which is backed a total of two photos. Were they analyzed for error? No. Were they checked for distortion effects of hot air around them? No. Do these measurements align with the bowing proposed in NIST models? No.
But yes, it's still the strongest evidence... And it's best is very poor.
@SexyMelon So your only argument against the bowing is the complete rejection of it's existence. Excellent and Human Chromosome 2 doesn't have telomeres in the middle of it!
Punch "wtc bowing" into google and click images. 2 images - lol.
@TheResidentSkeptic I reject existence of that for which there is no evidence. That's what skeptics do. What is the evidence for it? Those two photos? If so, how do you address the discrepancies, and the discrepancies between measured bowing and the model data (again contradicting the report)?
Creationist arguments seem to be the only things you're familiar with in the end. You didn't argue a single thing I've presented here, at all.
@SexyMelon Actually that's not what a skeptic would do. When presented evidence, the skeptic doesn't reject it, he tries to explain it in light of the correct understanding of events.
When a creationist says "The second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution", the skeptic doesn't reject the 2nd law - he states "The second law applies only to closed systems, the earth is an open system gaining energy from the sun".
@TheResidentSkeptic It looks like Creationism is the only thing you'd really rather discuss. Tough luck, of course, I'm a convinced atheist, and have no qualms with MES.
Knowing the high-school run-up on biology doesn't make you expert enough to discuss complex issues like engineering reports on building collapses. It looks like you're out of your depth.
Most "skeptics" like to pick on "conspiracy theories" because they think it's easy pickings. As they find out, it's not.
@SexyMelon You have made the same errors in logic that creationists do, and I have pointed them out to you, so I will continue to use creationism as an analogy to highlight your fallacies.
@TheResidentSkeptic The parallels you draw between this and modern evolutionary synthesis are quite out of their depth. Best leave it out.
Better leave the insults out as well. Especially when it's very clear you have never examined the report yourself, being unfamiliar with the parts of it I'm talking about right now, which is just brazen hypocrisy.
If you're not going to discuss this politely, I'm not going to.
@SexyMelon I am very familiar with the report(s), and 911 truth is very analogous to creationism/intelligent design, and global warming deniers, as well as moon-hoaxers. I will continue to draw analogies to them when warranted.
@TheResidentSkeptic Well, so far you have not shown familiarity with even one part of the reports I've mentioned.
Your "analogies" are nothing more than empty insults by any other name.
I grow tired of being insulted by self-proposed "skeptics". If your "official" story is so waterproof, you should be able to name the evidence supporting it, not just insult the opposition.
@TheResidentSkeptic The ASTM fire-safety tests exist to establish whether and how a building may be vulnerable to damage when engulfed in fire, the exact same thing NIST reports purported to analyze. Of course, WTC was certified by these standards to withstand eight-hour blazing fires without any structural damage, as was again proven by NIST during their repeat of the tests.
If the tests are correct, they are in contradiction to the report's conclusions.
@SexyMelon No they are not in contradiction to the report, and you yourself said why: "without any structural damage". Not only was there structural damage, but there was damage to the fireproofing, and the sprinkler system.
In fact there were numerous UL 263 tests run under NIST's solicitation, of them one was performed on naked steel (no concrete, no fireproofing spray or foam), which returned results contrary to suggesting even the possibility of collapse.
I've given you this lead. You didn't bother to check it. And, of course, this means you're not familiar with the report itself.
@SexyMelon I did check it, and nowhere in any NIST report does the term "UL 263" appear.
At 30 seconds in this video you can watch a weighted steel beam collapse from fire in 4 minutes: watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
What you appear to be saying is that had there been no fireproofing then the NIST report is completely credible. - Well we know that much of the fireproofing had been blown off by a gigantic explosion, so WTF?
@TheResidentSkeptic I don't think being able to "Ctrl+F" is a substitute to reading the report. UL 263 is an Underwriters Labs standard. UL were the one who certified WTC floor assemblies for the NIST reports.
Yet again, you use extremely poor amateur YouTube videos as substitute for research. Do you think this nonsense of heating a beam over open fire performed by Discovery channel is any substitute for standardized industrial testing by a leading engineering firm?
@TheResidentSkeptic "What you appear to be saying is that had there been no fireproofing then the NIST report is completely credible."
Please pay more attention. I couldn't possibly have said that.
What I said is, one of the UL 263 tests was performed in absence of ALL fireproofing, while still showing no possibility of collapse. This is the absolute ideal scenario of what NIST supposes happened, and yet it still contradicts their speculation.
@TheResidentSkeptic Of course, "Well we know that", exactly what evidence there is that much or any of the fireproofing has been removed?
You said you've been convinced by weight of the evidence, yet you seem to be using things are - and couldn't be anything other - than pure speculation.
@TheResidentSkeptic As for WTC 7, NIST did indeed - supposedly - provide a study of the mechanism of collapse of that building. Unfortunately, this data was then classified, rendering it perfectly useless as a form of evidence. Further, it is subject to drylabbing, which is a form of scientific fraud.
However, that report does detail something VERY interesting that's a good piece of evidence for "conspiracy theories", do you know what it is?
@SexyMelon It's not classified, I have it opened on my screen right now.
Punch "World Trade Center Disaster Study - NIST" in to google.
Click the first link.
On the right side of the page, click "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)"
Then click the link "Click here to retrieve PDF version of paper (5737 K)"
@TheResidentSkeptic Plus, of course, if you say "proof has already done" then you can't turn around and say burden of proof is on someone else when they can just turn to, again, Loose Change or something like that.
At that point "Burden of proof" also loses its meaning. Refer to what I said earlier: people don't use it in any skeptical sense, but just as empty rhetoric.
@TheResidentSkeptic Research is always commendable. I don't know the exact circumstances of what you know or believe in about this, so I can't really comment on that.
That was just a blind guess on my part based on personal experience: it's quite common that people watch trash like "Loose Change" and then stumble upon some equally trash "Debunker" blog that refutes it.
If your research methods are rigorous and skeptical, I can commend your conclusion, no matter what it is.
@SexyMelon I was around the same time also a global warming denier, and through the same methods of investigation have since changed my views. You can make these same arguments about climate change in that it's up to me to provide evidence supporting climate change, but it seems no matter how much evidence I show a climate change 'skeptic', they will not change their mind. My experience is the same with truthers.
@TheResidentSkeptic My experience is the same with... "Truth deniers"?.. I don't know... As well as climate change "skeptics", incidentally. I've had a few arguments along these lines too.
People who call themselves "skeptics" are rarely actually skeptical, unfortunately. Everyone thinks they're a skeptic. You won't find someone who doesn't, not even among religious fundamentalists or the like. It's only a label.
Skepticism, as I think you know, is actually about research.
@SexyMelon You're rejecting the arguments the "Truth" skeptics are putting forward simply by calling them pseudoskeptics - this is not valid reasoning.
While I do believe in some healthy skepticism, and how you do bring up their own website to show how they can do their own fallacies, at what point do you accept what is there?
What will a new investigation do?
Will it bring back those people who died?
Will it stop the WTC from being attacked?
And just putting up a book, debunking 9/11 debunking doesn't mean that your claim is right any more as me putting up a book title saying 9/11 never happened is right. It's called evidence.
@slatchem2016 "The official version [ of 911], that is, what the government and military officials had told us, was almost entirely and inexplicably untrue." - John Farmer, Senior Council for the 911 Commission.
The idea of skepticism is about basing facts on EVIDENCE instead of theories, yet if people would read the "Debunking 911 Debunking" they would know NIST refuses to show the evidence to back their theories.
These "skeptics" are knee jerk egos. Science never has an attitude of " I AM RIGHT" and "SOOT THE IDEA DOWN". Science is healthy skepticism, not ignorance.
I may be flag as an asshole even tho that category don't exist yet but I saw the events on the news and I said bullshit this buildings could not possibly fall symmetrically with side ways impacts, not mention 3 buildings with 2 planes and, the first 3 buildings in history to fall due to fire where the 911 ones, as a 150 IQ person I'll still call it bullshit there is something else around it.
Neither Jet Fuel, nor anything you'd find in a Class A Office building can burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there is evidence that steel in fact melted on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. (FEMA Report Appendix C)
Here is a video of NIST Lead Engineer John Gross lying about the molten steel, while the FDNY and Rescue Workers tell it like it really happened:
has someone any updates on Mark Basile - independent researcher from New Hampshire - and his paper about nano-thermite? I heard in radio interview that he approved that he had found red/grey chips and they reacted. Anyone knows when he will publish his peer review?
Very well made video. Your points are very reasonable and well thought out. I'd like to see a test, Jet Fuel fire on Trade Center Beam Versus thermite. I saw a test between thermite and a fire but that still doesn't answer my own questions. I have to say that these skeptics must be government shills for the most part. The popular mechanics so called debunking was pure bullshit to appease a truth hungry nation.
Thanks for the review. I am still waiting for Steve Novella to mention in his podcast that he mistakenly debunked the wrong chemical and not the Harrit "Nanothermite" paper in question. This demonstrates SGU's willingness to give their listeners incorrect information about 9/11 while hypocritically saying people who question 9/11 cannot be trusted.
Be sure to specify "nanothermite" which is many times more powerful than regular thermite and is what was found in the WTC dust.
And that's not the only thing wrong with that sham "PPG paint chips" paper.
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum.
Alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C.
Photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings.
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
offering an opinion (Noam) is hardly the same as what griffin does. figuring out the common sense answer to stupid allegations (Roberts) is hardly the same as what griffin does.
being knowledgable about a subject and claiming expertise by refuting what scientists say when your expertise is not science is why griffin is such a clown.
diagnosing mental health conditions when you make little videos....well, you get the idea.
David Ray Griffin isn't one of them. The dumb fool made up technologies that probably will never exist like voice morphers that makes you sound exactly like someone else.
Sorry to disagree, but David Ray Griffin never claimed to "make up" technologies like the voice morphing device reported in the 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing." Google it, because it existed before 9/11.
As for Griffin being a "dumb fool", while his career was teaching Process Theology, many of his pre 9/11 books are about overcoming religious fears of modern science.
If you want to hate the guy, fine, but maybe try to find a legit reason to hate him.
Nanothermite? Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval? Please explain.
2:51 - 4:00 explains this video from 1:57 - 2:51 /facepalm
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why hasn't Bin Laden been indicted for the crimes of 911?"
Because he's dead.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
So which episode, if any, did they address this on? I don't know anything on the subject, but your points appear valid and I'm sure if they are truly as significant as they seem then the panel won't have a problem accepting them as compelling evidence to say the least.
coreywitane 1 month ago
@blackjerryboymetal very funny - you're the only idiot on this page
mooners40 1 year ago
I've been a bordering on unreasonable hardcore skeptic for as long as I remember myself.
I would never stand for what the "Skeptic" community does today.
"Skepticism" does not stand for a perpetually closed mind and rejection of evidence to contrary of your beliefs. This is the exact and literal opposite of skepticism.
A true skeptic will doubt the truth of 9/11 only for as long as he's not aware of any evidence. A true skeptic would never reject it in absence of evidence to the contrary.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon How do you explain people like me, who used to be truthers but have since changed their minds after reviewing the evidence?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I don't think my comment has anything to do with that. People change their minds, it happens.
In your case, I'd wager a guess you were not aware of the hard evidence supporting the "conspiracy theories" in the first place, which is quite common.
What I was actually talking about is that modern so-called "Skepticism" stands for "Prove me wrong, I don't have to prove me right", which is the exact opposite of what skepticism should be.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Actually modern skepticism as Carl Sagan would define it is the practice of questioning the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence or reproducibility. The word skeptic comes from the Greek for "to investigate".
I accepted the claims of the truthers based on the "evidence" presented in documentaries like Loose Change, but upon doing real research (The type they teach you to do in university) I was forced to reject those beliefs. The evidence does not support them.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Actually modern skepticism as Carl Sagan would define it is the practice of questioning the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence or reproducibility."
Everyone knows that. Everyone thinks they're a skeptic.
This is what I said it should be, but it rarely is. In practice, by self-proposed popular "skeptics", it turns out to be nothing more than rejection of unpopular ideas based purely on faith.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Well that's unfortunate. My experience is the opposite.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I haven't watched Loose Change myself, but I do know it makes several highly erroneous claims. That also means my guess could be right after all, as that film, all in all, presents very few pieces of hard evidence.
Try Googling "9/11 research loose change" for a review of the evidence in that film from the perspective of "truthers" as it is. The site itself can provide better evidence than that, the veracity of which you can easily check yourself.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon It wasn't actually Loose Change itself that convinced me, but earlier documentaries like it, but it's claims were equally erroneous. I would like to see the truthers come up with a comprehensive theory of the events based on evidence that is falsifiable, then there will be something to talk about. As it stands right now 911 truth is simply denial of the current understanding of events, the same way creationism is simply denial of evolution. There are no positive arguments.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Then you, indeed, don't know the state of affairs in the truth movement, and don't know of the evidence presented. Like I guessed earlier, actually.
There's no unified think-tank or a court decision to have "one and only one theory", but do take a look at the "9/11 research" site I mentioned earlier. Specifically, the research on physical properties of WTC 1/2/7 collapse is some of the most unambiguous evidence for either side of the debate.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Actually, in my very first post to you I was going to include the phrase "I assume your argument is going to be that I haven't examined the evidence closely enough" but I omitted it, because I thought it presumptuous. I guess I should have included it, huh?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Well, you'd have been right in a sense, and it did turn out that you're not familiar with the evidence I'm talking about right now.
Did you know that NIST did not analyze the collapse sequence? That NIST reports contradict their own UL 263 solicited tests? That "truther" data is part of these reports? That WTC 7 report contains a freefall sequence?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon More negative arguments to support your position.
Did you know that evolution can't explain the eye? Did you know evolution can't explain the bacterial flagellum? Did you know evolution contradicts thermodynamics?
Do you have any positive arguments?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Please don't post such nonsense.
If you can't discuss the issue seriously, I'm not going to bother.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon "modern so-called "Skepticism" stands for "Prove me wrong, I don't have to prove me right""
I see you have never heard of a little thing called "The Burden of Proof"..
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "I see you have never heard of a little thing called "The Burden of Proof".."
It seems you, and most modern skeptics, misunderstand this concept.
"Burden of Proof" actually implies that the "burden" to argue a claim rests with someone who proposes it, whereas it's commonly reversed to mean that "burden" rests with whoever proposes a claim that's not in line with what is popular belief at the time.
Hence, "Prove me wrong, I don't have to prove me right."
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic So then, it is burden of proof of any "skeptic" to prove whichever one of the "official" versions of events of that day is true, which one has evidence for it, they can't simply be asserted without proof purely on the basis that some government or some institution or some segment of population supports them. There needs to be evidence.
The same goes for both sides of any argument, always.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon This has already been done, the NIST report is the most comprehensive example of it.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic What evidence do NIST reports have uncovered to subvert any conspiracy theories you know, what evidence have they uncovered to support any official story?
The common stance is that these reports are pseudo-scientific garbage that chooses to sidestep any and every issue raised by "truthers" - except for parts that were amended or added by them, anyway - while providing no further proof of the "official" story, despite backing it.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon The NIST report details the mechanism of building collapse and lists the evidence supporting it. The NIST report is not pseudoscientific in any way. You should read it.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Actually NIST never examined the collapse of WTC 1 or 2. Their report is, in fact, titled "Study of initiation of collapse", and that's what it is. There are some very interesting things going on in that part, like the denial and contradiction of their own ASTM fire-safety data (rendering the whole report moot).
Pseudo-science is defined as something being presented as scientific while not adhering to scientific methodology. So that's exactly it.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Actually the NIST report does examine the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and their latest examines WTC 7. Clearly you haven't read them.
Yes the NIST report explains the mechanism of collapse. If you're too lazy to read it you can watch this: watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8 or this: watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
Rendering the whole report moot? So if I reject punctuated equilibrium, that means evolution doesn't happen?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic You misunderstood. These are events that *lead up* to the *initiation* of the collapse, which is what the report does address.
Bonus question: what evidence, if any, have NIST presented to back up any of these claims?
Now, the collapse itself (taking 11 and 14 seconds respectively according to NIST), was not discussed at all.
Because you've used these extremely poorly composed YouTube videos as your backup, I have to call your research into question...
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon What evidence? The structural reliability of steel at high temperature, the physical damage to the structure of the towers due to impact, computer modeling of the structure, temperature measurements from NASA, photographs of the 'bowing' of the exterior columns just prior to collapse, etc. This is all consistent with collapse and not consistent with bombing.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Sorry, don't know what you're replying to.
But yes, what is the evidence for any of these things you mentioned? How is structural reliability inferred, what evidence supports the models, what are the temperature measurements, how reliable are the photos, is the bowing model consistent with the report?
Is there any evidence for it, or is simply speculation, or cherry-picking?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic On the other hand, what is the evidence that could contradict high-velocity ejections documented in the report during the collapse, the recorded flashes and explosions, the physical properties of the collapse sequence, the presence of extremely high temperatures at the collapse site, the leaking thermitic residue noted in the same report, etc., etc.?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Their goal wasn't to discuss the collapse, it was to understand the mechanism of collapse. This is like accusing evolutionary theory being unable to explain the origin of life - it's not meant to.
I used the YouTube videos as an alternative for you to watch, rather than reading the NIST report, because you are clearly too lazy to do so.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Like I said, the report does not address the collapse sequence. It is only speculation - with few to no evidence collected to support it, as discussed - about the events that would lead up to the point where it is "inevitable". What this leaves out is not just the property of collapse itself, but the gap in logic that partial collapse of any floor would lead to total, symmetrical, speedy, unstopped collapse (which is without basis).
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon "the report does not address the collapse sequence. It is only speculation"
Evolution does not address the origin of life. It is only speculation.
Global warming does not address solar irradiance. It is only speculation.
The Moon Landing does not address the van-allen belt. It is only speculation.
Partial collapse leads to total collapse because the buildings were not built to withstand partial collapse.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic This is some of the most fallacious arguments I've seen in a while... I'm pretty sure that's a direct non-sequitur, not even a common fallacy. What does evolution have to do with report not addressing the collapse? I said it doesn't address it, and it doesn't.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I'll try to explain it to you again: The report does not explain the collapse because the investigation didn't set out to explain the collapse, it set out to explain the mechanism of collapse initiation.
If I design a study to see if there is a correlation between cigarettes and cancer the study does not address the mechanism by which cigarettes cause cancer (ionizing radioactive decay) because it was not designed to.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "...it set out to explain the mechanism of collapse initiation."
Actually that's what I've been trying to explain to you. Good job catching up, I guess.
So what good is a collapse report that doesn't explain the collapse and just goes "And then magic happened, it just collapsed, we don't have to explain"?
Again your analogies fail to make any sense whatsoever. I don't even know where to start.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon General relativity doesn't explain how gravity acts at the subatomic level. What good is a theory of gravity if it can't explain the mechanism of gravity?
The NIST report is useful for understanding the cause of the collapse. Just because you're not interested in the cause of the collapse doesn't mean it's a useless report.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Again, your analogies don't even abide by basic logic. I don't know what you're getting at.
Yes, NIST reports argue the initiation of collapse. They do not explain how, why or whether this partial collapse could possibly lead to complete one, and do not address whether the physics of he collapse are consistent with intact structure.
That was my point.
Consequently, it's a non-report sidestepping the main issue: collapse.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Yes, my analogies don't abide by logic, because I am trying to explain your logical fallacies using analogies! I am glad at least that you noticed that my analogies are fallacious, if only you could understand why they're analogies.
So you're saying, that since the NIST report doesn't explain the cause of the collapse after it's initiation, what should have happened is that the building would have collapsed over like 5 floors, then stopped? Sorry, physics fail.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Whatever
"what should have happened is that the building would have collapsed over like 5 floors, then stopped?"
Could be. What's more likely is what happened to every other steel building that's been on fire: multiple small partial collapse events throughout large periods of time, possibly adding to total collapse in the end. This is well-documented.
What happened is only consistent with CD.
"Sorry, physics fail."
Not an argument. Very poor. Try again.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon There are no examples of steel skyscrapers being struck by jumbo-jet aircraft; false analogy, informal fallacy, correlate functions or properties not necessarily seen with homogeny. What we saw, is what we saw. The question should be to explain how it happened, not whether it happened.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic Once again: how is being struck by a - 767 is not a "jumbo jet" - aircraft make the case so special as to be unique, specifically, how does it make total collapse certain?
How could it possibly do that? It couldn't. This is Special Pleading is all.
Explain how it's special. Explain how a jet will totally collapse a building. Evidence.
"The question should be to explain how it happened, not whether it happened."
Circular Logic again. You need evidence.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon The weight of one tower, excluding contents, is approx. 154,000,000 kg. 1/4 of that being 38.5M kg. After falling one floor (3 meters) at freefall speed, it would provide approx. [1/2 Mv^2 or 1/2 M(1/3g)^2] 1.585 x 10^16 joules, compared to 3.78 x 10^8 joules of force at rest. This is enough force to cause the next floor's columbs to buckle, hence total collapse.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic Well-done copying data from that non-reviewed Bazant paper. But shouldn't you have done that research before this little argument if you call yourself a skeptic?..
"After falling one floor at freefall speed"
There's your problem. How can it be "falling" - "freefalling"! - through solid steel and concrete (well, unless the structure in its way was physically removed)?
"This is enough force to cause the next floor's columbs to buckle"
Evidence, please.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Here's a paper you might find interesting:
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic There are quite a few papers published on the subject of the attack. About 42 in total. Unfortunately, almost all of them deal with technical calculation based on baseless speculation, rather than studies in accordance with scientific methodology.
There's only about one that actually adheres to collect evidence -> guess -> test methodology, I hope you know what it is.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic For the sake of rhetoric, let's assume NIST report is perfectly correct - including that part where they documented leaking molten steel, but that's for later - and the collapse was initiated at given floors due to fires.
What is the evidence that such a partial collapse would lead to total collapse of the buildings, given that there is no known mechanism or precedent for this to occur, in prior history?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon The NIST report says nothing about molten steel. Molten metal perhaps, but not steel.
"What is the evidence that such a partial collapse would lead to total collapse"?
It did.
What evidence is there that the big bang would result in humans talking about 911 on youtube?
It did.
If we only have 1 example of something how can I possibly provide other examples of it happening?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "The NIST report says nothing about molten steel."
They called it "molten aluminum" after it's been pointed out to them, unsurprisingly, without evidence. Are you even aware of that part of the report?..
"It did."
AMAZING.
For all these analogies, do you even know what "Circular Logic" is? Well, that's what it is.
"Why do you think it really happened? Because it DID."
Why was the building demolished? Because it was...
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Right, molten aluminium, what's the problem?
Actually that's not circular logic. Circular logic supports it's conclusion with appear to it's premise. If it's circular then it's also circular to claim that evolution resulted in humans since, is did.
This is not circular logic, it's an appeal to observed reality: Empiricism.
It doesn't matter whether the building collapsed from fire, or controlled demolition, it DID collapse. The question is WHY.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Right, molten aluminium, what's the problem?"
Because that is speculation based on no evidence. What was actually recorded was *molten steel*, as there is no indication that it could possibly be any other substance, as there is no test and no theory which would allow airplane aluminum to behave this way... Unless it was heated to about the same temperature which would also melt steel.
Problem. Molten steel. Not a fire.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon There's no evidence of any molten steel. Only witnesses who claim they saw molten steel. The plural of testimony is not data.
There is an indication that it could have been another substance - namely aluminium. Aluminium melts at temperatures far below what was measured at the WTC site, and the buildings had thousands of pounds of aluminium injected into them at 500mph.
So where's this evidence of molten steel?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "There's no evidence of any molten steel."
You're confused again. The molten steel leaking off the side of the building is documented in the NIST reports.
"There is an indication that it could have been another substance - namely aluminium."
Evidence, please. No theoretical or test data supports this possibility.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I just gave you evidence. There was aluminium there: Fact. Aluminium melts at lower temperatures than were measured at the WTC site: Fact.
I'm not claiming to KNOW it's aluminium. NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. The NIST report concluded that it is most likely aluminium based on the evidence I listed. Unfortunately we can't sample the stuff and take a spectrographic analysis because we don't have time machines.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "I just gave you evidence."
Didn't notice. Repeat, please?
"There was aluminium there: Fact. Aluminium melts at lower temperatures than were measured at the WTC site: Fact."
You're missing the point. Molten aluminum does not behave like the substance in question did. Molten aluminum does not have orange glow, nor produces sparks, until heated well past its melting point (to where steel would also melt), at which point it is super-liquid.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic In a roundabout way though, you did admit that this "aluminum" excuse is based purely on speculation, and yet it's still used to dismiss any other possibility. How come?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Because one is possible and consistant with all other evidence, and the other isn't. I gave you 2 good indisputable facts that support the hypothesis that it was aluminium. What facts support the hypothesis that it was steel? I think you'll find you can only support it with assumptions like "molten steel is a byproduct of thermite" or something like that.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic You didn't answer my question.
Why do you use what you know is pure speculation without basis - "It could be aluminum, I don't know" - to dismiss the possibility of it being anything else?
Because of circular logic? Really? Do you understand the point of the argument? Did you read what I said about melting points?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Yes, that's definitely circular logic... Using speculation (molten aluminum) to back up the scenario (means whatever story) that you think backs up that said speculation (which means molten aluminum, perfect circle!).
Do you honestly not notice these things? Your reasoning is ripe with such fallacies. Surely a skeptic would use evidence, not such shoddy mental tricks.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Again - the evidence is consistent with aluminium, and it is not consistent with molten steel. This is not circular logic, this is a deductive argument from empirical evidence. You need some training in logic.
1. There was aluminium
2. Aluminium melts below observed temperatures
3. Steel does not melt at observed temperatures
4. Therefore it was probably aluminium and not steel.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "There was aluminium"
There was also steel. Dismissed.
"Aluminium melts below observed temperatures"
Yes, and it is SILVER at those temperatures. Steel is not. Therefore: it could be steel, but not aluminum.
"Steel does not melt at observed temperatures"
Therefore FIRES did not melt the steel. Therefore: incendiaries or other high-temperature causes (fire dismissed due to being unable to melt steel).
All of this was covered before.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Yes, there was also steel... and? This doesn't refute the argument, simply shows that you do not understand how a logical syllogism works.
In formal logic, the conclusion is true if the argument is valid (follows from the premises) and the premises are sound (true). - The premises are sound, and the logic is valid. Where is your objection?
Steel is not molten at those temperatures, so it couldn't be steel either. More likely aluminium, plastics, and other metals.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon You still haven't established the existence of molten steel beyond reasonable doubt, so you can't use it as evidence of incendiaries.
I could claim that there is molten uranium and use that as evidence of a nano-nuclear device with just as much support as you have.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon If there is all this molten steel, why do people like Steven Jones need to publish doctored photographs of firemen huddled around a pool of 'molten steel', which is actually a flashlight? watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I'm starting to think that you're just trolling now, since you keep pointing out circular arguments that don't exist...
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Yeah, you're the one to accuse people of trolling... Sigh.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Circular logic supports it's conclusion with appear to it's premise. If it's circular then it's also circular to claim that evolution resulted in humans since, is did."
Yes, that is circular logic. You cannot support a conclusion with that conclusion being the premise.
"It doesn't matter whether the building collapsed from fire, or controlled demolition, it DID collapse."
Actually what you said was: "It collapsed *from fire* because it did."
Prove it.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Again, no it isn't circular logic. You're thinking of a tautology, but it isn't that either because it's an appeal to observed facts. All the evidence is on the side of collapse, and so far I've seen none that suggest demolition exclusively.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "Again, no it isn't circular logic. You're thinking of a tautology"
Actually the same thing, in terms of informal logic. Where premise equals conclusion, same thing.
Circular logic isn't wrong because of its circular nature, but because what it does is assert a premise without evidence. As you do. What evidence?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Please give me some positively indicative evidence of a controlled demolition. I will not accept negative arguments like "it couldn't have collapsed from fire alone" - because this, as you may know, is a false dichotomy. It might have been Ancient Aliens. Unless I can provide evidence of Ancient Aliens, simply saying "Fire alone couldn't have done it" doesn't prove it was Ancient Aliens.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Please give me some positively indicative evidence of a controlled demolition."
Absolutely. Did you check out the data documented as per WTC 7 NIST FR I mentioned at the very beginning of our discussion, or do you have yet to get to it? If you didn't yet, that is it.
Frankly you should know many more, including this one.
Plus, why would you reject what you call "negative arguments"? If something couldn't happen, and we know it didn't, it's evidence.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon A link maybe? Googling that doesn't result in anything like evidence.
Proving something didn't happen is not equivalent to proving something else did - that's why. It's a false dichotomy, another fallacy. You're trying to set up the dichotomy of "Collapse or demolition", then assume that by proving collapse false it proves demolition true by default. This is very unscientific.
"Evolution or creation", evolution is false, therefore creation. <-- Same logic.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I guess you're not going to apologize for saying you're "familiar" with NIST reports, and yet you can't figure out any references I give to text within them.
Very well, the section is NIST NCSTAR 1A. I believe they describe their video footage measurements starting on Page 40.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Proving something didn't happen is not equivalent to proving something else did - that's why."
No disagreements there. But if it proves that fire didn't do it, and it couldn't have collapse with the structure intact... Then other means were used to enable the collapse.
By ruling out the natural cause, all you're left with is artificial collapse, demolition. Ergo sum, true dichotomy.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon "But if it proves that fire didn't do it, and it couldn't have collapse with the structure intact... Then other means were used to enable the collapse."
I agree. So far you haven't managed to do that, so go ahead... I'm waiting.3
"By ruling out the natural cause, all you're left with is artificial collapse, demolition. Ergo sum, true dichotomy." - or Ancient Aliens. I can only assume this is a weak attempt at an argument from ignorance.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I have no idea what you just said...
"I can only assume this is a weak attempt at an argument from ignorance."
You have a very weak grasp on logic.
If you want to argue Ancient Aliens, that's your burden and your problem. For now, the only plausible scenarios are within realm of possibility: unaided collapse, or aided collapse. The latter is demolition.
If someone didn't die on their own, they were killed. Would you say "Or it was Ancient Aliens"? Jeez.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon It could be Ancient Aliens, or suicide, or a million different other ways. "Collapse or demolition" is a false dichotemy. If you don't like Ancient Aliens, then how steel-eating bacteria?
Just because you can't think of another cause of the collapse besides demolition does not mean it was a demolition. This is an argument from ignorance.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "It could be Ancient Aliens, or suicide, or a million different other ways."
"Well, that man was clearly shot, but it wasn't a bullet! It could have been anyone! Aliens! Zombies! Vampires!"
This is awfully weak. You just don't understand logic. Somehow.
If it wasn't fire, it was something else. If it was something else, it was a demolition - but you're right, it could be demolition of any sort. Maybe even aliens if you like. But it was done.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "This is an argument from ignorance"
Argument from Ignorance is "I don't know how it happened, therefore I know how it happened."
At the point where fire hypothesis is rejected, we don't yet know WHAT happened. We only know what DIDN'T happen. And that leaves us with a myriad ways that a building could be demolished - all of which still point to, you guessed it, an inside job.
Maybe by the terrorists themselves. Which begs the question why we don't know.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Argument from Ignorance is "I don't know how it happened, therefore I know how it happened."
Right.
You said: I don't know how it could collapse on it's own, therefore demolition.
I'm still waiting on that positively indicative evidence. If you didn't see my last post about it, googling what you told me to look for didn't result in anything. Can you please post a link to something?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "You said: I don't know how it could collapse on it's own, therefore demolition."
No.
I said: "From this, we can conclude collapse could not occur on its own, thefore it was demolition."
Demolition = Any collapse that does not occur "on its own".
Duh?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "I'm still waiting on that positively indicative evidence."
Already gave you report section and page number. NIST NCSTAR 1A, Page 40. Specifically, frame-by-frame analysis and "Period of 9,8m/s acceleration".
That's from a report you've claimed to have read.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon And what specifically in NIST NCSTAR 1A is positively indicative of a controlled demolition?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon "NCSTAR 1A" is not one of the NIST reports. They are labeled "NIST NCSTAR 1-1A, 1-1B, 1-2A 1-2B etc.
Please be more specific.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I think I've had enough of this.
If you're not going to be reasonable, I'm not going to argue anymore. You can reply to this if you want, but I won't respond.
I was talking about WTC 7 FR, of course. Check it out if you check nothing else, the section is the same NCSTAR 1A, Page 40 onward, written courtesy of those zany "conspiracy theorists": /watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
Have a nice life.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Of course I'm not being reasonable... how else are you going to settle your cognitive dissonance? I'll watch your video later and get back to you.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon So I watched the video... Please explain to me how this is positively indicative evidence of explosives?
From what I gather your argument is as follows:
NIST said the building fell 40% slower than freefall, they were wrong, therefore bombs.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I hope you realize that quoting NIST to support a demolition is a lot like quoting James Randi to support your belief in psychics...
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "If we only have 1 example of something how can I possibly provide other examples of it happening?"
Why just one? You still haven't explained how this office fire ignited by jet fuel is somehow magically different from any other office fire ignited by some other kind of fuel.
The history of fires is more than plenty. Tons of cases. Unless you can pick a reason why WTC (1,2,7) case is so special as to lead to total collapse, there's plenty of samples.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Why just one? Because it's the only time it has ever happened in history!
It isn't magically different, and I never suggested it was. No other steel-framed skyscraper has ever been hit by a Boeing 767.
Again, they aren't special, they are the first of their kind. You're making a false analogy between being struck by a jumbo-jet, and a simple office fire.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "It isn't magically different, and I never suggested it was."
You suggested this case of fire in a steel-frame building cannot be compared to other cases of fires in steel-frame buildings, and that it would behave drastically differently (collapse like a controlled demolition) to all those other cases.
You haven't explained why other than saying "a plane hit it". So what is it about a plane impact that makes it "magic"?..
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon The aircraft impact destroyed much of the fireproofing, the sprinklers, and load-bearing structure. That makes it a very different situation.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "The aircraft impact destroyed much of the fireproofing, etc."
Evidence, please.
Also, how do you reconcile that with the fact that aforementioned fire tests found that, even with 100% of the proofing removed, the floors would not collapse?
More importantly, still, how does it make it different to any other case? All you're talking about would only affect the fire-affected floors. We're talking about partial collapse causing collapse of the intact floors
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Do you understand that you cannot magic WTC to be some kind of one-in-a-million special case study when talking about building fires, and if you do, then you couldn't possibly have any basis for saying "Well that's just what you'd expect?"
Come on now. You're regurgitating old and tired rhetoric. I thought you said you did research, you studied it, you found evidence - but this is just the same repeated old rhetoric that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon What I said was that I studied the evidence in favour of he demolition hypothesis and found the evidence to be unsupportive* of the claim and more parsimoniously explained by collapse.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "Partial collapse leads to total collapse because the buildings were not built to withstand partial collapse."
No partial collapse in any steel structure has ever lead to complete, speedy, symmetrical collapse of the structure.
Because there is no precedent in history of this occurring, the conclusion that it HAD to is a complete non-sequitur. No evidence and no precedent to back it up.
Thus, impossible. Burden of proof is on you. Is there any proof?..
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Black Swan Fallacy
No steel skyscraper has ever been struck by a 767.
And yes, many steel structures have collapsed completely from fire alone, and they weren't even struck by aircraft!
I once heard of a guy who survived a skydiving accident where both his main and reserve parachute failed to open. This had not happened before in all of history. Therefore it didn't happen.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "No steel skyscraper has ever been struck by a 767."
How exactly does this make the complete, total, speedy and symmetrical collapse an inevitability?
Unless you can pick the exact circumstance which would make this fire an absolutely exceptional case aiding the total collapse, you're arguing the arbitrary.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "And yes, many steel structures have collapsed completely from fire alone, and they weren't even struck by aircraft!"
Let me guess, Kader Toy Factory?
Roof caving in inside a shoddily-made warehouse transformed into a factory is pretty poor analogy to pulverization of a billion-dollar industry-standard skyscraper, you understand.
Do you have any examples though? You said it happened. So go on.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "I once heard of a guy..."
Some skepticism.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon ["I once heard of a guy..."]
"Some skepticism."'
I see you fail to differentiate between analogies and claims. 2 seconds of google will list over a dozen examples of skydivers surviving without parachutes.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic In my defense, your analogies fail to make sense. I don't even know what you're getting at.
I don't want to argue semantics anyway. Contrary to popular "debunking" tactics, I don't want to prove every single thing you say wrong, no matter what it is...
So far I see that your beliefs aren't actually based on evidence, but on trust in some kind of authority. In this case, NIST's authority, as you're unaware of most of their work. Is that right?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic My earlier guess was that you base your conclusions not on the weight of evidence, but on authority. In this case, NIST's authority, despite their reports showing little to no evidence to back up their conclusions, and certainly no evidence to contradict any other theories. This does seem to be the case, doesn't it?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I just listed evidence that contradicts other theories, the strongest of which is the bowing of the exterior columns just prior to collapse.
No I don't base my conclusions based on NIST's authority, I base them on the science detailed in the NIST report. I don't base my conclusions about evolution on Darwin's authority, I base them on the evidence listed in Origin of Species (and subsequent science)
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "I just listed evidence that contradicts other theories"
No, you didn't.
"the strongest of which is the bowing of the exterior columns just prior to collapse"
Which is backed a total of two photos. Were they analyzed for error? No. Were they checked for distortion effects of hot air around them? No. Do these measurements align with the bowing proposed in NIST models? No.
But yes, it's still the strongest evidence... And it's best is very poor.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon So your only argument against the bowing is the complete rejection of it's existence. Excellent and Human Chromosome 2 doesn't have telomeres in the middle of it!
Punch "wtc bowing" into google and click images. 2 images - lol.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I reject existence of that for which there is no evidence. That's what skeptics do. What is the evidence for it? Those two photos? If so, how do you address the discrepancies, and the discrepancies between measured bowing and the model data (again contradicting the report)?
Creationist arguments seem to be the only things you're familiar with in the end. You didn't argue a single thing I've presented here, at all.
Not that easy, huh.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Actually that's not what a skeptic would do. When presented evidence, the skeptic doesn't reject it, he tries to explain it in light of the correct understanding of events.
When a creationist says "The second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution", the skeptic doesn't reject the 2nd law - he states "The second law applies only to closed systems, the earth is an open system gaining energy from the sun".
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Nowhere did I say I rejected evidence... I said I rejected that for which there is NO evidence.
Please pay more attention.
You constant references to Creationism are getting rather pathetic. If that's the only thing you're concerned with, I'm inclined to leave you be...
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon The point about the bowing is that if the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, it shouldn't exist at all!
Just because I can show a discrepancy between general relativity and quantum mechanics does not warrant a complete rejection of physics.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "The point about the bowing is that if the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, it shouldn't exist at all!"
Why not? One way or another, it is weight of the rubble pulling down on the trussess.
Of course, only if we assume such bowing is real. As it stands, the evidence is cherry-picked at best to justify its existence.
It seems that your case's "best evidence" is unreliable at best and false at worst. Or do you have proof?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic It looks like Creationism is the only thing you'd really rather discuss. Tough luck, of course, I'm a convinced atheist, and have no qualms with MES.
Knowing the high-school run-up on biology doesn't make you expert enough to discuss complex issues like engineering reports on building collapses. It looks like you're out of your depth.
Most "skeptics" like to pick on "conspiracy theories" because they think it's easy pickings. As they find out, it's not.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon You have made the same errors in logic that creationists do, and I have pointed them out to you, so I will continue to use creationism as an analogy to highlight your fallacies.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic You're quite unfit to point out any lapses in logic.
Your analogies are nothing more than insults. It's incredibly low and scummy. Certainly not befitting a skeptic.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic The parallels you draw between this and modern evolutionary synthesis are quite out of their depth. Best leave it out.
Better leave the insults out as well. Especially when it's very clear you have never examined the report yourself, being unfamiliar with the parts of it I'm talking about right now, which is just brazen hypocrisy.
If you're not going to discuss this politely, I'm not going to.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I am very familiar with the report(s), and 911 truth is very analogous to creationism/intelligent design, and global warming deniers, as well as moon-hoaxers. I will continue to draw analogies to them when warranted.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Well, so far you have not shown familiarity with even one part of the reports I've mentioned.
Your "analogies" are nothing more than empty insults by any other name.
I grow tired of being insulted by self-proposed "skeptics". If your "official" story is so waterproof, you should be able to name the evidence supporting it, not just insult the opposition.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic The ASTM fire-safety tests exist to establish whether and how a building may be vulnerable to damage when engulfed in fire, the exact same thing NIST reports purported to analyze. Of course, WTC was certified by these standards to withstand eight-hour blazing fires without any structural damage, as was again proven by NIST during their repeat of the tests.
If the tests are correct, they are in contradiction to the report's conclusions.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon No they are not in contradiction to the report, and you yourself said why: "without any structural damage". Not only was there structural damage, but there was damage to the fireproofing, and the sprinkler system.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I don't recall saying that.
In fact there were numerous UL 263 tests run under NIST's solicitation, of them one was performed on naked steel (no concrete, no fireproofing spray or foam), which returned results contrary to suggesting even the possibility of collapse.
I've given you this lead. You didn't bother to check it. And, of course, this means you're not familiar with the report itself.
Skepticism, huh.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I did check it, and nowhere in any NIST report does the term "UL 263" appear.
At 30 seconds in this video you can watch a weighted steel beam collapse from fire in 4 minutes: watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
What you appear to be saying is that had there been no fireproofing then the NIST report is completely credible. - Well we know that much of the fireproofing had been blown off by a gigantic explosion, so WTF?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic I don't think being able to "Ctrl+F" is a substitute to reading the report. UL 263 is an Underwriters Labs standard. UL were the one who certified WTC floor assemblies for the NIST reports.
Yet again, you use extremely poor amateur YouTube videos as substitute for research. Do you think this nonsense of heating a beam over open fire performed by Discovery channel is any substitute for standardized industrial testing by a leading engineering firm?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic "What you appear to be saying is that had there been no fireproofing then the NIST report is completely credible."
Please pay more attention. I couldn't possibly have said that.
What I said is, one of the UL 263 tests was performed in absence of ALL fireproofing, while still showing no possibility of collapse. This is the absolute ideal scenario of what NIST supposes happened, and yet it still contradicts their speculation.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Of course, "Well we know that", exactly what evidence there is that much or any of the fireproofing has been removed?
You said you've been convinced by weight of the evidence, yet you seem to be using things are - and couldn't be anything other - than pure speculation.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic As for WTC 7, NIST did indeed - supposedly - provide a study of the mechanism of collapse of that building. Unfortunately, this data was then classified, rendering it perfectly useless as a form of evidence. Further, it is subject to drylabbing, which is a form of scientific fraud.
However, that report does detail something VERY interesting that's a good piece of evidence for "conspiracy theories", do you know what it is?
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon It's not classified, I have it opened on my screen right now.
Punch "World Trade Center Disaster Study - NIST" in to google.
Click the first link.
On the right side of the page, click "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)"
Then click the link "Click here to retrieve PDF version of paper (5737 K)"
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheResidentSkeptic "It's not classified, I have it opened on my screen right now."
The computer simulation data for the WTC 7 collapse sequence has been classified. The report itself is available to the public.
"You're rejecting the arguments the "Truth" skeptics are putting forward simply by calling them pseudoskeptics - this is not valid reasoning."
No, I'm not.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Plus, of course, if you say "proof has already done" then you can't turn around and say burden of proof is on someone else when they can just turn to, again, Loose Change or something like that.
At that point "Burden of proof" also loses its meaning. Refer to what I said earlier: people don't use it in any skeptical sense, but just as empty rhetoric.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic Research is always commendable. I don't know the exact circumstances of what you know or believe in about this, so I can't really comment on that.
That was just a blind guess on my part based on personal experience: it's quite common that people watch trash like "Loose Change" and then stumble upon some equally trash "Debunker" blog that refutes it.
If your research methods are rigorous and skeptical, I can commend your conclusion, no matter what it is.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon I was around the same time also a global warming denier, and through the same methods of investigation have since changed my views. You can make these same arguments about climate change in that it's up to me to provide evidence supporting climate change, but it seems no matter how much evidence I show a climate change 'skeptic', they will not change their mind. My experience is the same with truthers.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic My experience is the same with... "Truth deniers"?.. I don't know... As well as climate change "skeptics", incidentally. I've had a few arguments along these lines too.
People who call themselves "skeptics" are rarely actually skeptical, unfortunately. Everyone thinks they're a skeptic. You won't find someone who doesn't, not even among religious fundamentalists or the like. It's only a label.
Skepticism, as I think you know, is actually about research.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon Why don't we stop arguing about the semantics of the word skeptic and deal with the issues?
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic These semantics is what my original comment was about. If you want to discuss something else, just ask. I've got some time.
SexyMelon 2 weeks ago
@SexyMelon You're rejecting the arguments the "Truth" skeptics are putting forward simply by calling them pseudoskeptics - this is not valid reasoning.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 weeks ago
You really don't have a clue, do you?
fsabot19022 1 year ago
Comment removed
slatchem2016 1 year ago
Comment removed
slatchem2016 1 year ago
Comment removed
slatchem2016 1 year ago
Comment removed
slatchem2016 1 year ago
Comment removed
slatchem2016 1 year ago
While I do believe in some healthy skepticism, and how you do bring up their own website to show how they can do their own fallacies, at what point do you accept what is there?
What will a new investigation do?
Will it bring back those people who died?
Will it stop the WTC from being attacked?
And just putting up a book, debunking 9/11 debunking doesn't mean that your claim is right any more as me putting up a book title saying 9/11 never happened is right. It's called evidence.
slatchem2016 1 year ago
@slatchem2016 "The official version [ of 911], that is, what the government and military officials had told us, was almost entirely and inexplicably untrue." - John Farmer, Senior Council for the 911 Commission.
The idea of skepticism is about basing facts on EVIDENCE instead of theories, yet if people would read the "Debunking 911 Debunking" they would know NIST refuses to show the evidence to back their theories.
So at what point do YOU accept what is there?
stoobradley 1 year ago 3
These "skeptics" are knee jerk egos. Science never has an attitude of " I AM RIGHT" and "SOOT THE IDEA DOWN". Science is healthy skepticism, not ignorance.
Kingfillins 1 year ago
I may be flag as an asshole even tho that category don't exist yet but I saw the events on the news and I said bullshit this buildings could not possibly fall symmetrically with side ways impacts, not mention 3 buildings with 2 planes and, the first 3 buildings in history to fall due to fire where the 911 ones, as a 150 IQ person I'll still call it bullshit there is something else around it.
Ramiromasters 1 year ago
They`re not skeptics, they`re skep DICKS. 9/11 inside job
ManFromMelbourne 1 year ago
@ManFromMelbourne
If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you probably don't know much physics.
slatchem2016 1 year ago
@slatchem2016 watch?v=EA5Rer7iSRU
GnosticNinja 10 months ago
omg are people still thinking 9-11 was done with explosives? WTF it so easy to debunk.
huluftw 1 year ago
Neither Jet Fuel, nor anything you'd find in a Class A Office building can burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there is evidence that steel in fact melted on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. (FEMA Report Appendix C)
Here is a video of NIST Lead Engineer John Gross lying about the molten steel, while the FDNY and Rescue Workers tell it like it really happened:
watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
has someone any updates on Mark Basile - independent researcher from New Hampshire - and his paper about nano-thermite? I heard in radio interview that he approved that he had found red/grey chips and they reacted. Anyone knows when he will publish his peer review?
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
Very well made video. Your points are very reasonable and well thought out. I'd like to see a test, Jet Fuel fire on Trade Center Beam Versus thermite. I saw a test between thermite and a fire but that still doesn't answer my own questions. I have to say that these skeptics must be government shills for the most part. The popular mechanics so called debunking was pure bullshit to appease a truth hungry nation.
screwopenborders 2 years ago
Thanks for the review. I am still waiting for Steve Novella to mention in his podcast that he mistakenly debunked the wrong chemical and not the Harrit "Nanothermite" paper in question. This demonstrates SGU's willingness to give their listeners incorrect information about 9/11 while hypocritically saying people who question 9/11 cannot be trusted.
Be sure to specify "nanothermite" which is many times more powerful than regular thermite and is what was found in the WTC dust.
Best wishes.
stoobradley 2 years ago
And that's not the only thing wrong with that sham "PPG paint chips" paper.
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum.
Alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C.
911happenedforreal 1 year ago
Photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings.
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
911happenedforreal 1 year ago
I like how all this debunking is just emotional outbursts and childish name calling for the most part.
screwopenborders 2 years ago
ebaums did 911
carzorthade 2 years ago
who better to debunk a scientific report than....a theologian!!!
laffs...
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
By that logic then:
Noam Chomsky's political opinions should be ignored because he is only a professor of linguistics,
Mark Roberts is only qualified to be a tour guide,
and James Randi is only qualified to debunk magic tricks.
But, believe it or not, it is possible for people to be knowledgeable about many subjects, other than their chosen profession.
stoobradley 2 years ago
"By that logic then:"
offering an opinion (Noam) is hardly the same as what griffin does. figuring out the common sense answer to stupid allegations (Roberts) is hardly the same as what griffin does.
being knowledgable about a subject and claiming expertise by refuting what scientists say when your expertise is not science is why griffin is such a clown.
diagnosing mental health conditions when you make little videos....well, you get the idea.
notice a pattern? I'm sure you don't.
unclesamsnephew666 2 years ago
David Ray Griffin isn't one of them. The dumb fool made up technologies that probably will never exist like voice morphers that makes you sound exactly like someone else.
technoextreme 2 years ago
Sorry to disagree, but David Ray Griffin never claimed to "make up" technologies like the voice morphing device reported in the 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing." Google it, because it existed before 9/11.
As for Griffin being a "dumb fool", while his career was teaching Process Theology, many of his pre 9/11 books are about overcoming religious fears of modern science.
If you want to hate the guy, fine, but maybe try to find a legit reason to hate him.
stoobradley 2 years ago
Nanothermite? Why did Dr. Steven Jones circumvent the peer review process by not showing his nanothermite paper to the chief editor and printing it without her approval? Please explain.
911happenedforreal 1 year ago