• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I can't stand 9/11 conspiracy debunkers

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You have mere opinions. I have concepts that have been tested and confirmed. When one side of an argument avoids peer review it is almost a sure sign that they know that they are wrong.

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't any of this been peer reviewed? If one side is avoiding it, then how is that possible? All of these claims are posted publicly, so what's to prevent any peer (or anyone else) from reviewing it?

And what does that say about government's propensity to keep things secret and classified? Doesn't that imply that it's the government which is avoiding peer review?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Just out of curiosity, why hasn't any of this been peer reviewed? If one side is avoiding it, then how is that possible? All of these claims are posted publicly, so what's to prevent any peer (or anyone else) from reviewing it?

And what does that say about government's propensity to keep things secret and classified? Doesn't that imply that it's the government which is avoiding peer review?


Nothing is stopping the conspiracy theorists from putting their ideas through the process of peer review. The blame lies upon them an no others.

By reading your post again it seems that you may not even understand the peer review process. A scientist that hopes to prove an idea writes a paper and submits it to a well respected professional journal for peer review. If it is a novel idea, and if there are no clear errors it will likely be published. If there are errors it will be sent back to him for corrections. It may take several attempts for an article to pass peer review. The work that I have seen of the conspiracy theorists tends to be rather heavy on the errors. They would need to clean up their act a bit to get any idea published.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nothing is stopping the conspiracy theorists from putting their ideas through the process of peer review. The blame lies upon them an no others.

By reading your post again it seems that you may not even understand the peer review process. A scientist that hopes to prove an idea writes a paper and submits it to a well respected professional journal for peer review. If it is a novel idea, and if there are no clear errors it will likely be published. If there are errors it will be sent back to him for corrections. It may take several attempts for an article to pass peer review. The work that I have seen of the conspiracy theorists tends to be rather heavy on the errors. They would need to clean up their act a bit to get any idea published.

I get what you're saying, and I'll freely admit that I'm not a scientist. My areas of study were mainly in the soft sciences, particularly history, political science, economics - with an emphasis on Russian Studies. I've also studied language and the use of language, semantics, and how language can be used in propaganda and other forms of manipulation.

So, if I see a video posted (such as those posted by dfnj), I would try to be fair and open-minded, although I would also want to read or hear of any opposing views as well. Maybe it's not the same thing as peer review, but someone should be able to review it and answer it in depth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I get what you're saying, and I'll freely admit that I'm not a scientist. My areas of study were mainly in the soft sciences, particularly history, political science, economics - with an emphasis on Russian Studies. I've also studied language and the use of language, semantics, and how language can be used in propaganda and other forms of manipulation.

So, if I see a video posted (such as those posted by dfnj), I would try to be fair and open-minded, although I would also want to read or hear of any opposing views as well. Maybe it's not the same thing as peer review, but someone should be able to review it and answer it in depth.


They have been. I could play the video game linking videos that refuted his. But the fact that he can't support his claims with peer review where those on the side of a catastrophic collapse caused by an uncontrolled fire burning for hours can support their claims with peer review is more than enough to refute his claims.

And the point is that real science is done through the process of peer review today. If someone really believes in himself as a scientist he will go to the trouble of writing a paper on the topic so that others in his field can read it and do their own work using the same processes. Either they will confirm or refute the scientist's work. In the sciences those that avoid peer review tend to be amazingly wrong. If those on your side are afraid to put their concepts to the test it is rather hard to claim that they are "scientific facts".
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They have been. I could play the video game linking videos that refuted his. But the fact that he can't support his claims with peer review where those on the side of a catastrophic collapse caused by an uncontrolled fire burning for hours can support their claims with peer review is more than enough to refute his claims.

And the point is that real science is done through the process of peer review today. If someone really believes in himself as a scientist he will go to the trouble of writing a paper on the topic so that others in his field can read it and do their own work using the same processes. Either they will confirm or refute the scientist's work. In the sciences those that avoid peer review tend to be amazingly wrong. If those on your side are afraid to put their concepts to the test it is rather hard to claim that they are "scientific facts".

I see. I've had similar discussions with "Truthers" as well, so I often manage to get both sides mad at me. It's just the kind of guy I am. Some might think I'm trolling, but I'm really not. Sometimes I just see a point I want to challenge and want to get to the real heart of the matter.

I see 9/11 more as a matter of criminal science, not necessarily analogous to other scientific topics which don't involve actual crimes (nor with any real political ramifications). I see this as a detective story, a "whodunit." Even if one could prove scientifically (with peer review) that it was a controlled explosion, it really doesn't prove who did it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I see. I've had similar discussions with "Truthers" as well, so I often manage to get both sides mad at me. It's just the kind of guy I am. Some might think I'm trolling, but I'm really not. Sometimes I just see a point I want to challenge and want to get to the real heart of the matter.

I see 9/11 more as a matter of criminal science, not necessarily analogous to other scientific topics which don't involve actual crimes (nor with any real political ramifications). I see this as a detective story, a "whodunit." Even if one could prove scientifically (with peer review) that it was a controlled explosion, it really doesn't prove who did it.
That is true, but it was fairly obviously not a case of controlled explosives. Experts on controlled demolition is a group that is conspicuously absent from Troofers.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, why hasn't any of this been peer reviewed? If one side is avoiding it, then how is that possible? All of these claims are posted publicly, so what's to prevent any peer (or anyone else) from reviewing it?

And what does that say about government's propensity to keep things secret and classified? Doesn't that imply that it's the government which is avoiding peer review?

I agree. The official conspiracy theory needs to be backed by real peered review science. Not computer simulations where NIST doesn't publish the assumptions that went into the model.

Here' s a peer reviewed paper on residue of explosives found in the 9/11 dust:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Then the comments will be that journal is not good enough. Well, here's the problem with peered review papers on 9/11 science:

“Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals,” Richard Smith, former editor of The BMJ (previously British Medical Journal), lists a host of deficiencies in the process, stating that “… [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” In conclusion, he writes: “… peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review [47,48].”

The problem with the official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is there is no science to support it. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. Buildings do not collapse from fires. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A computer model is not evidence. If NIST published the model for other engineers and experts to study it would be more credible in my opinion. When I watch the NIST animation of the collapse from their model it doesn't look like anything in the live video. The video evidence for WTC 7 supports controlled demolition as the most plausible explanation.

Newton's 3rd law of motion just can't be ignored by NIST and their official conspiracy theory.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
This video is really well-done. The comments below the video are very interesting.


The official theory of gravity being the driving force behind the collapse just doesn't hold water. Buildings do not collapse they way the official conspiracy theory claims. It never happened this way before and never since. The pancake theory and the pile driver theory are bad "junk" science.

Just show one experiment confirming the pancake theory or pile driver theory and I will be convinced.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree. The official conspiracy theory needs to be backed by real peered review science. Not computer simulations where NIST doesn't publish the assumptions that went into the model.

Here' s a peer reviewed paper on residue of explosives found in the 9/11 dust:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Then the comments will be that journal is not good enough. Well, here's the problem with peered review papers on 9/11 science:

“Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals,” Richard Smith, former editor of The BMJ (previously British Medical Journal), lists a host of deficiencies in the process, stating that “… [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” In conclusion, he writes: “… peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review [47,48].”

The problem with the official conspiracy theory put forth by NIST is there is no science to support it. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. Buildings do not collapse from fires. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A computer model is not evidence. If NIST published the model for other engineers and experts to study it would be more credible in my opinion. When I watch the NIST animation of the collapse from their model it doesn't look like anything in the live video. The video evidence for WTC 7 supports controlled demolition as the most plausible explanation.

Newton's 3rd law of motion just can't be ignored by NIST and their official conspiracy theory.

I stopped reading after the first sentence. Computer simulations are perfectly okay in a peer reviewed article. You need to work on your understanding of how science is done.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Computer simulations are perfectly okay in a peer reviewed article. You need to work on your understanding of how science is done.

I wish you would stop with the ad hominem attacks. True or false: NIST release the model of WTC 7 collapse for peer review?
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
You do not appear to understand what an ad hominem is. Nor how peer review is done.

Please stop insulting me. Either comment on what I am saying or shut up. But stop attacking me. It's against the terms of service.

Again, True or false: NIST release the model of WTC 7 collapse for peer review?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Please stop insulting me. Either comment on what I am saying or shut up. But stop attacking me. It's against the terms of service.

Again, True or false: NIST release the model of WTC 7 collapse for peer review?
That was an observation, not an insult. And you confirmed my observation. Articles are not "released" for peer review. You do not understand the peer review process.

Instead of being so defensive when your errors become obvious why don't you try to learn? If you did that you would not repeat your errors.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
That was an observation, not an insult. And you confirmed my observation. Articles are not "released" for peer review. You do not understand the peer review process.

Instead of being so defensive when your errors become obvious why don't you try to learn? If you did that you would not repeat your errors.

So you admit NIST did not release their model of the collapse for WTC 7 because it is junk science. Very good. We are making progress.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So you admit NIST did not release their model of the collapse for WTC 7 because it is junk science. Very good. We are making progress.
Posting gibberish that only tells us of your ignorance does not help you.

Once again one does not "release" a model for peer review. If you can ask politely I will try to help you again. Post claims that I said something that I did not when you have an inability to understand a basic concept is not proper.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Posting gibberish that only tells us of your ignorance does not help you.

Once again one does not "release" a model for peer review. If you can ask politely I will try to help you again. Post claims that I said something that I did not when you have an inability to understand a basic concept is not proper.

Again, you keep deflecting the conversation to me instead of focusing on the topic. Again, I am asking you politely if you do not wish to talk about the topic then do not post at all. I absolutely do not care at all about your commentary about what I know or don't know.

By not releasing the assumptions and the data that went into the model NIST used for the WTC 7 collapse then it cannot be reviewed by experts in the field. I hope we can agree on this one point.

From the NIST report: “The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fire played a role.”

"In its second progress report, released in May 2003, NIST laid out three leading hypotheses for the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. One was FEMA’s “pancake theory” involving the failure of floor connections. Another hypothesis suggested that the floor connections held strong, which then caused the sagging floors to pull the exterior columns inward until they buckled. This would become the main initiating mechanism in NIST’s “Probable Collapse Sequence.” The third hypothesis posited direct fire-induced column failure."

I have no problem with NIST saying fire caused high-rise buildings to collapse when it never happened before as long as they show some experiment that somewhat resembles the video evidence. Columns may fail because of fire but buildings ONLY fall at near-free fall speed because of controlled demolition. That is a fact. No experiment has ever shown it otherwise. It's not up to me to prove NIST is wrong. It is up to NIST to prove their theory is valid. Otherwise it is junk science as I've said. It's just superstition not supported by any experiments.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again, you keep deflecting the conversation to me instead of focusing on the topic. Again, I am asking you politely if you do not wish to talk about the topic then do not post at all. I absolutely do not care at all about your commentary about what I know or don't know.

By not releasing the assumptions and the data that went into the model NIST used for the WTC 7 collapse then it cannot be reviewed by experts in the field. I hope we can agree on this one point.

From the NIST report: “The WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fire played a role.”

"In its second progress report, released in May 2003, NIST laid out three leading hypotheses for the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2. One was FEMA’s “pancake theory” involving the failure of floor connections. Another hypothesis suggested that the floor connections held strong, which then caused the sagging floors to pull the exterior columns inward until they buckled. This would become the main initiating mechanism in NIST’s “Probable Collapse Sequence.” The third hypothesis posited direct fire-induced column failure."

I have no problem with NIST saying fire caused high-rise buildings to collapse when it never happened before as long as they show some experiment that somewhat resembles the video evidence. Columns may fail because of fire but buildings ONLY fall at near-free fall speed because of controlled demolition. That is a fact. No experiment has ever shown it otherwise. It's not up to me to prove NIST is wrong. It is up to NIST to prove their theory is valid. Otherwise it is junk science as I've said. It's just superstition not supported by any experiments.
It is not a deflection when I point out gross errors. Refusing to address them only means that you will repeat them and we will not get anywhere.

What makes you think that the data was not available? There is of course not "one report" there are numerous reports dealing with different aspects of the collapse.

Your inability to understand the reports does not refute them.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
This is probably my favorite 9/11 video because it highlights how the laws of physics were suspended based on the official explanation. The official explanation makes extraordinary claims that are complete unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. If NIST release their computer models for the building collapses for analysis I would shut up. But they did not because of "national security concerns". What bunch a holes!!!


Here's another really good video on 9/11 possibilities. A lot of conjectures but the guy makes some pretty good arguments. His argument about aluminum plan would not be able to piece the steel in the tower because it is just not possible at the jet's speed based on armor piercing bullet research is very interesting. He claims the physics just doesn't support the claim and the videos on 9/11 were engineered. An aluminum jet airplane simply could not piece the steel skin of the towers which is twice as thick as tank armor. It's a pretty interesting argument:


I just don't understand why people have such a bias to certain explanations of what happened when it comes to 9/11. What difference does it make how the terrorists created the terror on 9/11? I just don't understand why people have such a STRONG biased to their own opinions. It's just strange how 9/11 makes people have such emotional reactions.
 
Top