32 of 91
32
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 466 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:29 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 03:18 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:11 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 12:39 AM
Lois - 21 May 2013 11:53 PM

Maybe it takes 100 years for reality to set in.

If you spent the next 100 years conducting experiments and modelling structures you would still not be able to show that the 9/11 collapse effect you worship is a reality.

This is you literally admitting there is no evidence or experiment that would ever convince you. And you wonder why no one is bothering. LOL

No, I am saying you have literally no experimental evidence to support your collapse hypothesis, and you never will. And you wonder why some people think the science you believe in is fake.

We know jomper, you just finished saying there is no model, no evidence and no expert in ten or a hundred years that would ever convince you of the official 9/11 conclusions.

That’s the difference between you and me. I’ll still examine a counter claim ten plus years later by some online idiot named psikey and point out the flaws of his actual argument and ‘evidence’. While you sit there and proudly claim you’ll never be convinced in ten or a hundred years, regardless of what model or evidence is submitted because you claim there is no such evidence and there never will be.

You couldn’t have more clearly stated your non sceptical close mindedness, and I for one appreciate at least that much honesty confirming to the rest of us there is no point in even trying.

Again you misrepresent what I have said. I am saying you have no experimental evidence to support your position and however hard you try to portray my observation of that fact as closed-mindedness on my part, you will still have no experimental evidence to support your position.

You are also misrepresenting the purpose of psikey’s model, which does not present a counter claim but in fact investigates the claim you are making. Got a problem with it? Fine—but where is your experimental validation for your beliefs?

It is nowhere and you will never have any. You’ve had a decade and, allegedly, all the experts on your side. But when it comes to the validation or reproduction of your ideas, to use your favourite phrase, “we’re still waiting”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 467 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 03:46 AM

Again you misrepresent what I have said. I am saying you have no experimental evidence to support your position and however hard you try to portray my observation of that fact as closed-mindedness on my part, you will still have no experimental evidence to support your position.

I do not require experimental evidence for my position, which has always been that I accept the official expert backed conclusions about the WTC collapses. I don’t accept this blindly, given the official explanation has easily withstood all examination on my part. I’m also willing to entertainment anyone else’s findings about the official explanation, which leads us right back to square one: what is your evidence and argument, jomper?

You are also misrepresenting the purpose of psikey’s model, which does not present a counter claim but in fact investigates the claim you are making. Got a problem with it? Fine—but where is your experimental validation for your beliefs?

The problems with psikey’s model have been well documented in this thread. His model does not present a counter to my claim since I make none other than repeatedly pointing out I accept the official explanation and his model demonstrates zero problems with it.

It is nowhere and you will never have any. You’ve had a decade and, allegedly, all the experts on your side. But when it comes to the validation or reproduction of your ideas, to use your favourite phrase, “we’re still waiting”.

Now you’re just blatantly lying. I have never taken credit for producing, validating or reproducing the official investigation conclusions of 9/11. I’ve only aserted I accept the conclusions and those conclusions have withstood all my scrutiny. I’m certainly not infalliable, so I’m prepared to entertain any objections or points I may have missed regarding the official conclusion.

Which leads us back to that important question: what is you evidence and argument, jomper? And yes, we are indeed still waiting.

Asserting I haven’t reproduced the 9/11 investigation is irrelevant, you’re the one who is challenging it. The ball is in your court: fetch.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 468 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 08:23 AM

I do not require experimental evidence for my position

What a ridiculous statement.

You absolutely need to point to evidence that the phenomenon you think destroyed the towers exists on days other than 9/11. You have all these experts on your side, Robert, who you’ve apparently decided to believe in without thinking for yourself: what, did not one of these scientists produce an experiment that reproduces something like the collapse effect you’ve so blindly accepted?

Not even one experiment showing how gravity could totally destroy the towers? In more that ten years?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 469 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

From The Popular Mechanics Website:

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com

For the whole of the article, click on http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Comment: So much for NIST not being on the job. Game set and match. The tinfoil beanie crowd loses.

Done here.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 470 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 08:38 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 08:23 AM

I do not require experimental evidence for my position

What a ridiculous statement.

You absolutely need to point to evidence that the phenomenon you think destroyed the towers exists on days other than 9/11.

I have plenty of evidence aircraft and gravity exist today. Apparently you don’t?

You have all these experts on your side, Robert, who you’ve apparently decided to believe in without thinking for yourself: what, did not one of these scientists produce an experiment that reproduces something like the collapse effect you’ve so blindly accepted?

I by no means blindly accept that aircraft and gravity destroyed the WTC towers. The expert conclusions on the issues merely withstand all examinstions I’ve made, although I’m prepared to entertain evidence and arguments showing these are flawed. Your evidence and arguments are….what?

Not even one experiment showing how gravity could totally destroy the towers? In more that ten years?

I’m not impressed by your implicit claim gravity cannot cause a sufficiently damaged structure to collapse.

I’m still waiting for you to present an argument and evidence for your position. Silence is not an argument and repeatedly insisting I review the official expert conclusions is pointless, I’ve done that already. Now I await your evidence and argument regarding the official expert conclusion. I have no problem trusting expert opinion and conclusions unless given good reason not to.

Again, what is your evidence and argument? What has everyone else, including the experts, missed you are so concerned about?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 471 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 May 2013 08:51 AM

From The Popular Mechanics Website:

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
Visit us at PopularMechanics.com

For the whole of the article, click on http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Comment: So much for NIST not being on the job. Game set and match. The tinfoil beanie crowd loses.

Done here.

And the experimental verification for the collapses in all this is where?

Nowhere.

You have nothing. No game, no set, no match. Without experimental verification for the principle you believe destroyed the towers, you don’t even get into the court.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 472 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:06 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 08:38 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 08:23 AM

I do not require experimental evidence for my position

What a ridiculous statement.

You absolutely need to point to evidence that the phenomenon you think destroyed the towers exists on days other than 9/11.

I have plenty of evidence aircraft and gravity exist today. Apparently you don’t?

You have all these experts on your side, Robert, who you’ve apparently decided to believe in without thinking for yourself: what, did not one of these scientists produce an experiment that reproduces something like the collapse effect you’ve so blindly accepted?

I by no means blindly accept that aircraft and gravity destroyed the WTC towers. The expert conclusions on the issues merely withstand all examinstions I’ve made, although I’m prepared to entertain evidence and arguments showing these are flawed. Your evidence and arguments are….what?

Not even one experiment showing how gravity could totally destroy the towers? In more that ten years?

I’m not impressed by your implicit claim gravity cannot cause a sufficiently damaged structure to collapse.

I’m still waiting for you to present an argument and evidence for your position. Silence is not an argument and repeatedly insisting I review the official expert conclusions is pointless, I’ve done that already. Now I await your evidence and argument regarding the official expert conclusion. I have no problem trusting expert opinion and conclusions unless given good reason not to.

Again, what is your evidence and argument? What has everyone else, including the experts, missed you are so concerned about?

It’s perfectly simple. I’ve said it a thousand times now. The experts you believe in can’t show that this collapse effect you worship actually exists on any day other than 9/11. Once you’ve accepted that there is no chance of you experimentally verifying anything like this gravity-driven total collapse you’re so absurdly attached to, we can explore the alternatives together, can’t we?

Or would you like to point to experimental verification for your desperate faith in 9/11 science? No, of course you wouldn’t—because you can’t.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 473 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

So in other words, jomper, you have no argument and evidence and can only cry that I shouldn’t trust expert conclusions. That about sum up your position?

I don’t need expert conclusions and modeling to prove a sufficiently damaged structure will yield to gravity, anymore than I need them to demonstrate I will fall and hit the ground if I trip badly enough.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 474 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:21 AM

So in other words, jomper, you have no argument and evidence and can only cry that I shouldn’t trust expert conclusions. That about sum up your position?

I don’t need expert conclusions and modeling to prove a sufficiently damaged structure will yield to gravity, anymore than I need them to demonstrate I will fall and hit the ground if I trip badly enough.

No, my position is your explanation for the collapses is fake science, and my evidence for this is that it cannot be reproduced in any way, shape or form. Your only response to this seems to be that 9/11 science worshippers like you don’t need to have their theories verified.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 475 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 09:27 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:21 AM

So in other words, jomper, you have no argument and evidence and can only cry that I shouldn’t trust expert conclusions. That about sum up your position?

I don’t need expert conclusions and modeling to prove a sufficiently damaged structure will yield to gravity, anymore than I need them to demonstrate I will fall and hit the ground if I trip badly enough.

No, my position is your explanation for the collapses is fake science, and my evidence for this is that it cannot be reproduced in any way, shape or form. Your only response to this seems to be that 9/11 science worshippers like you don’t need to have their theories verified.

I’ve produced no explanations for the collapses of 9/11, the experts did that. I merely accept their conclusions (that is what experts are for) and their conclusions have withstood every examination I’ve made.

If you question their conclusions, submit you arguments and evidence. It’s not my job to do your work for you, no matter how much you plead for me to do so. If you challenge the expert conclusions, you do the work. And yes, I’m still waiting for your arguments and evidence.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 476 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:34 AM

I merely accept their conclusions (that is what experts are for) and their conclusions have withstood every examination I’ve made

Then I suggest you return to your examinations after educating yourself on the principles of the scientific method, as you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 477 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 09:44 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:34 AM

I merely accept their conclusions (that is what experts are for) and their conclusions have withstood every examination I’ve made

Then I suggest you return to your examinations after educating yourself on the principles of the scientific method, as you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone.

You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 478 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:46 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 09:44 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:34 AM

I merely accept their conclusions (that is what experts are for) and their conclusions have withstood every examination I’ve made

Then I suggest you return to your examinations after educating yourself on the principles of the scientific method, as you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone.

You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.

That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done. However, since you accept the conclusions, I must be wrong about this. Did you find any experimental validation for the “collapse effect” during your extensive examination of the research? It’s inconceivable that you’d accept them otherwise. That would just make you a slavish, unquestioning drone invoking expert opinions instead of thinking for yourself, wouldn’t it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 479 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 11:37 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:46 AM

You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.

That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done.

First off, you do not prove your assertion by simply making another assertion. You need to prove no testing or reproduction of results has been done, not simply claim this is the case and expect everyone to take your word for it. You should be very sympathic to this position, given you assert it’s unreasonable to take expert opinions at face value, never mind some random person’s claims online. You argue I shouldn’t accept expert opinion without evidence(which I completely agree with), therefore I’m not going to accept yours without evidence either. I expect you to applaud this rational scepticism on my part.

Secondly, even if you could demonstrate that no testing or reproduction of the conclusions has been done by any person at any time anywhere on the planet, that still doesn’t prove testing and reproduction of said conclusions cannot be done. That would only prove it hasn’t been done, it doesn’t prove it cannot be done.

I await your actual evidence now, after having passed your obvious test of not accepting claims at face value without evidence to back up such claims.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 480 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 11:54 AM
jomper - 22 May 2013 11:37 AM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 09:46 AM

You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.

That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done.

First off, you do not prove your assertion by simply making another assertion. You need to prove no testing or reproduction of results has been done, not simply claim this is the case and expect everyone to take your word for it. You should be very sympathic to this position, given you assert it’s unreasonable to take expert opinions at face value, never mind some random person’s claims online. You argue I shouldn’t accept expert opinion without evidence(which I completely agree with), therefore I’m not going to accept yours without evidence either. I expect you to applaud this rational scepticism on my part.

Secondly, even if you could demonstrate that no testing or reproduction of the conclusions has been done by any person at any time anywhere on the planet, that still doesn’t prove testing and reproduction of said conclusions cannot be done. That would only prove it hasn’t been done, it doesn’t prove it cannot be done.

I await your actual evidence now, after having passed your obvious test of not accepting claims at face value without evidence to back up such claims.

I’ve been waiting for experimental validation of the “collapse effect” for more than a decade. No-one has even attempted it, unless you count people like psikey, which I expect you do not.

There is no experimental validation for your argument. This is simply the fact of the matter, not a baseless assertion. You claim it is perfectly obvious what caused the collapses and that the vast majority of expert opinion is on your side. Very well then: the “collapse effect” should be easy to experimentally validate. But you have nothing to show me. I do not accept unverifiable, unreproducible conclusions as valid science. Why do you?

Profile
 
 
   
32 of 91
32