42 of 91
42
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 05 November 2013 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 616 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

The title of the thead is,  Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?

There is plenty of evidence for the official explanation. What there is no evidence for is a conspiracy. but the conspiracy theorists will never give up, just as they will never give up about Roswell.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2013 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 617 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 05 November 2013 05:25 PM
jomper - 05 November 2013 12:02 PM

It seems pretty obvious after 41 pages that the answer to the OP from the forum here is “no”.

I note that the NIST report is debunked in its own terms, even though it was plainly pseudoscience from the start, because the omission of stiffener plates from its analysis invalidates the column 79 progressive collapse hypothesis.

Can I consider my witnessing 2 planes crashing into the buildings on TV as evidence?
If I can consider that as evidence then I support the Official Facts.

Of course you can. But as that has no bearing on the topic of this thread, one would have to assume from your response that your answer to the OP is “no”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2013 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 618 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 05 November 2013 08:26 PM

The title of the thead is,  Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?

There is plenty of evidence for the official explanation. What there is no evidence for is a conspiracy. but the conspiracy theorists will never give up, just as they will never give up about Roswell.

What you need to do here is offer some scientific evidence that supports the official WTC 7 fall theory, not make an assertion that it exists without pointing to the evidence you are personally convinced by.

This thread is full of posts insisting the evidence is there, but very little (actually nothing) by way of evidence actually presented as being persuasive or, for that matter, scientific.

Are you actually another “no”, Lois, or are you able to point to the scientific evidence that supports the official WTC 7 collapse theory that you are defending? Assertions don’t count I’m afraid.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 619 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1394
Joined  2009-10-21
jomper - 05 November 2013 11:26 PM

This thread is full of posts insisting the evidence is there, but very little (actually nothing) by way of evidence actually presented as being persuasive or, for that matter, scientific.

Are you saying that if the evidence is not summarized and rewritten here in a post here, then it doesn’t count? Are you saying that if someone can ask a question and no one provides an answer to that specific someone, then the question is unanswered for anyone? “Scientific” to me, means something published and reviewed and verified. What does it mean to you? You have a computer and can read and write English, so I think it’s fair for me to assume that you can find the same evidence I have.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 620 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Ah good, then you have some verified and peer reviewed evidence that supports the official WTC 7 collapse theory to present? I’m not asking for it to be summarised, although a note as to what it is you find convincing would be nice. In general a link or two would be sufficient.

And in response to your other questions, this is a forum for skeptical enquiry isn’t it? It seems a reasonable place to ask a question of the nature of the question asked by the OP. If no-one here is capable of defending the official account of the collapse, so be it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 621 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

error

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 622 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

One doesn’t need to worry about jomper.

He thinks he can makes claims and they stand until disproven. When that tactic of discussion is used in turn against him, he whines that it isn’t honest. Which is true. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 623 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 05 November 2013 11:26 PM
Lois - 05 November 2013 08:26 PM

The title of the thead is,  Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?

There is plenty of evidence for the official explanation. What there is no evidence for is a conspiracy. but the conspiracy theorists will never give up, just as they will never give up about Roswell.

What you need to do here is offer some scientific evidence that supports the official WTC 7 fall theory, not make an assertion that it exists without pointing to the evidence you are personally convinced by.

This thread is full of posts insisting the evidence is there, but very little (actually nothing) by way of evidence actually presented as being persuasive or, for that matter, scientific.

Are you actually another “no”, Lois, or are you able to point to the scientific evidence that supports the official WTC 7 collapse theory that you are defending? Assertions don’t count I’m afraid.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842


You can accept the scientific explanation or continue with your own form of woo-woo.

Assertions don’t count when it comes to conspiracy theories, but that’s all you’ve got.

[ Edited: 06 November 2013 09:24 AM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 624 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

That’ll be a big “no” from you to the OP as well, then, Robert?

[ Edited: 06 November 2013 11:29 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 625 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Robert Walper - 06 November 2013 09:04 AM

One doesn’t need to worry about jomper.

He thinks he can makes claims and they stand until disproven. When that tactic of discussion is used in turn against him, he whines that it isn’t honest. Which is true. LOL

He also thinks that if he can come up with any unanswered question, that counts as skepticism and proof of a conspiracy.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 626 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 06 November 2013 09:24 AM
Robert Walper - 06 November 2013 09:04 AM

One doesn’t need to worry about jomper.

He thinks he can makes claims and they stand until disproven. When that tactic of discussion is used in turn against him, he whines that it isn’t honest. Which is true. LOL

He also thinks that if he can come up with any unanswered question, that counts as skepticism and proof of a conspiracy.

Lois

Are you quite done with misrepresenting my position? Try offering something more credible than a popular mechanics article that presents a collapse hypothesis that NIST abandoned in its final report, at least.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 627 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1394
Joined  2009-10-21

Another term, “skeptical enquiry”, you are using with dubious intent. Not all questions fall under that category. Use of the term “theory” in the OP is stretching the definition of that term and implies some form of skepticism that goes beyond scientific inquiry. What theory are you questioning? Gravity? Fire? That planes can fly? That video is valid evidence?

Why does the official account need an additional peer-reviewed study to defend it? It doesn’t develop a theory of terrorism or offer any new theories on how burning skyscrapers fall. It uses existing facts to explain what happened in this case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 628 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Lausten - 06 November 2013 09:39 AM

Another term, “skeptical enquiry”, you are using with dubious intent. Not all questions fall under that category. Use of the term “theory” in the OP is stretching the definition of that term and implies some form of skepticism that goes beyond scientific inquiry. What theory are you questioning? Gravity? Fire? That planes can fly? That video is valid evidence?

Why does the official account need an additional peer-reviewed study to defend it? It doesn’t develop a theory of terrorism or offer any new theories on how burning skyscrapers fall. It uses existing facts to explain what happened in this case.

An additional peer reviewed report? You’re under the illusion that the NIST WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed? I’m afraid that’s not true.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 629 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

Geez, this thing is still going? 42 pages??

Jack and Jill go to a dance club. The DJ plays typical pop dance fare: loud, all the same tone, all the same tempo. Jack and Jill start to dance.

Jack: “Geez, this music sucks.”

Jill: “Yeah, I agree. It sure does. Why do they even use this stuff?”

Jack: “Maybe to keep people dancing? Who knows.”

Jill: “No,  I think it’s to prevent a new world order.”

Jack: “Um, what?”

Jill: “I said, ‘I think it’s to prevent a new world order.’”

Jack: “Yeah, I heard what you said. You’re yelling in my ear.”

Jill: “Then why ask me what I said?”

Jack: “I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you what you meant.”

Jill: “No you didn’t.”

Jack: “Yes I did.”

Jill: “No, you didn’t.”

Jack: “Um, yes I did.”

Jill: “No, you didn’t. You’re deliberately misunderstanding me.”

Jack: “Um, what?”

Jill: “Forget it, let’s stop dancing for a bit.”

Jack: “Only if you stop.”

Jill: “I’ll stop if you stop.”

Jack: “No, you first.”

.

.

.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2013 10:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 630 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1394
Joined  2009-10-21
jomper - 06 November 2013 10:27 AM
Lausten - 06 November 2013 09:39 AM

Another term, “skeptical enquiry”, you are using with dubious intent. Not all questions fall under that category. Use of the term “theory” in the OP is stretching the definition of that term and implies some form of skepticism that goes beyond scientific inquiry. What theory are you questioning? Gravity? Fire? That planes can fly? That video is valid evidence?

Why does the official account need an additional peer-reviewed study to defend it? It doesn’t develop a theory of terrorism or offer any new theories on how burning skyscrapers fall. It uses existing facts to explain what happened in this case.

An additional peer reviewed report? You’re under the illusion that the NIST WTC7 report was independently peer reviewed? I’m afraid that’s not true.

No I’m not. Apparently you are looking for ways to misinterpret my words. You aren’t responding to any of my questions or attempting to clear up any of my misunderstandings of what you are saying.

Maybe I should have asked; Why is a peer reviewed study required in addition to the official report? Peer reviewed studies are for studying new phenomenon. They are used to develop new scientific theories or verify or enhance existing theories. There is no new theory of buildings and planes being developed. It’s a report that assumes things like the people named are real and the planes mentioned were regularly scheduled flights and the firemen were trying to put out fires, not cover up financial misdeeds. I don’t need some other science to convince me of those facts. Why do you?

Profile
 
 
   
42 of 91
42