Does WTC7 report help or hurt Debunkers?

[Sizzler]

Well, what do you think?

Personal experiences yet?

[Mark Felt]

No. Not really. How are debunkers helped by information that truthers completely ignore?

If truthers didn't disregard anything that doesn't fit the conclusion they came to before looking at any of the evidence, maybe it'd be yes.

[Sizzler]

No. Not really. How are debunkers helped by information that truthers completely ignore?

If truthers didn't disregard anything that doesn't fit the conclusion they came to before looking at any of the evidence, maybe it'd be yes.

For irrational truthers this could be the case.

But what about the rational ones (cue trypical JREF remarks....now), or even people that are either on the fence or haven't looked into the matter?

[Mark Felt]

For irrational truthers this could be the case.

But what about the rational ones (cue trypical JREF remarks....now), or even people that are either on the fence or haven't looked into the matter?

Even the rational ones are starting from the premise that there's a conspiracy.

[timhau]

For irrational truthers this could be the case.

But what about the rational ones (cue trypical JREF remarks....now)

I'm sure debunkers will let you know once they encounter one.

Hey, you asked for it!

[Sizzler]

Even the rational ones are starting from the premise that there's a conspiracy.

Well so are non-truthers. They just believe in a different set of conspirators.

[Sizzler]

I'm sure debunkers will let you know once they encounter one.

Hey, you asked for it!

Graeme MacQueen seems pretty rational in my opinion. Also, I have see him sell anything "truth" related.

[Mark Felt]

Well so are non-truthers. They just believe in a different set of conspirators.

No, we started from the premise that something caused the towers to fall down. The evidence led us to believe that there was a conspiracy to crash the planes into the towers. Further investigation leads me to the conclusion that this conspiracy originated in al-qaeda.

I go where the evidence tells me to go, not where I want the evidence to lead.

[johnny karate]

This thread and poll are non-starters. Debunkers have no stake whatsoever in the WTC7 Report because the winning or losing of an Internet debate affects nothing. Reality is reality.

[Dr Adequate]

But what about [...] people that are either on the fence or haven't looked into the matter? Well, I think it'll help to stop them from becoming woo, but possibly only in the way that another drop in the ocean helps to keep it wet.

[Mobyseven]

It hurts me...because I want it to. It hurts so good...

NIST I been a bad boy! A bad boy!

[Jonnyclueless]

Well so are non-truthers. They just believe in a different set of conspirators.

That is incorrect.

[WildCat]

Sizzler, does having zero evidence of an inside job help or hurt truthers?

[Drudgewire]

Anyone who believed "the official story" until they looked at WTC-7 doesn't need a government document, they need a lobotomy.

So voting "no change," since there isn't a "finally shut up the idiots who kept smugly suggesting no report = cover-up" option.

[GregHouseMD]

If anyone takes the report on face value, meaning what it says is what it means. If they do not quote it out of context. If they read it and accept that is it factual, complete and accurate, then the report helps debunking the TM line that WTC7 was a CD event.

Very few truthers will do that however.

Bottom line, I think it is just another blimp on the screen and the arguement will continue.

Personally, I think the most compelling piece of debunking evidence is the LACK of evidence.

No one has broken ranks and come foward to admit their part in covering up the "inside job". This is the biggest hole in the conspriacy theory.

No coverup as massive as this one would have to be could go 7 years without at least one person coming out of the woodwork.

[1337m4n]

But what about the rational ones (cue trypical JREF remarks....now), or even people that are either on the fence or haven't looked into the matter?

I suppose it helps against "rational truthers". You yourself are the evidence of that, you started a thread earlier stating that this new report would convince you to abandon the CD hypothesis if unchallenged.

As has been noted, however, there are few "rational" truthers. You are quite rare. So I have to vote "no change".

[Pardalis]

It supports a non-intentional collapse, so I would say yes.

[Mooseman]

No change

[Quad4_72]

For irrational truthers this could be the case.

But what about the rational ones (cue trypical JREF remarks....now), or even people that are either on the fence or haven't looked into the matter?

There is NO such thing a rational twoofer. If you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, you are not rational.

[leftysergeant]

Graeme MacQueen seems pretty rational in my opinion. Also, I have see him sell anything "truth" related.

He isn't, really. His siezing on the Swiss cheese steel as evidence of thermite shows that he blathers a lot about things he does not understand. He does not work with objective facts. All his teachings deal with subjective truths, based on the conssitancy of a thought with the thoughts of the Buddha.

[laodoggie]

Just having the report released is helpful in that
they can't say seven years and no report anymore!

Get er done!

[cludgie]

Just having the report released is helpful in that
they can't say seven years and no report anymore!

Get er done!

Instead the warcry changes to an ever-so-predictable 'seven years and a coverup/sham report'

[DGM]

I had to go with 'no change'

A report from someone they believe to be "in on it" would be just propaganda. Most "truthers" have not and will not read it. They are told what to believe to prolong the life of the 'cult' by it's leaders.

Any "truther" that can show me (with facts and real evidence) what they got wrong I would listen to. So far all I hear is blind accusations and ignorance of the way buildings behave to extraordinary circumstances.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I can see answering both "help" and "no change".

On one hand, it would help, because it's more, real information that can be referenced. On the other hand, it wouldn't make a difference, because real information means nothing to the vast majority of truthers.

I abstain.

Well so are non-truthers. They just believe in a different set of conspirators.


Except "our" conspirators aren't given the super-human task of trying to keep a massive operation hidden indefinitely. I don't think that's a distinction most truthers can wrap their heads around.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

NO change it is basically similar to the NIST theory of heat weakened collapse of the towers.

Only this time it is heat thermally expanding a critical support element do to un fought fires, the big question is as presented is the fuel loading and fire intensity correct?

IT actually hurts debunking because NIST did not go into the theories of the Trutherists, with a good understanding of what the theories are, so the response to those theories was very weak.

It also relies extensively on computer modeling.

The truthers will have fun with this.

[Dr Adequate]

IT actually hurts debunking because NIST did not go into the theories of the Trutherists ... Does every biology paper hurt biology because it does not go into the theories of the Creationists?

[dudalb]

Instead the warcry changes to an ever-so-predictable 'seven years and a coverup/sham report'

Like any of us expected anything different.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Does every biology paper hurt biology because it does not go into the theories of the Creationists?

No However NIST promised to look at alternative theories to World Trade Center 7, a better understanding and addressing of those theories would have derailed many claims we will hear now.

[zorro99]

I still say that the most convincing argument against the theory of controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the motive - what was accomplished by blowing up WTC 7? There is no need to blow up a building to destroy documents or electronic data, and it's not at all clear that doing so would even be particularly effective. That is the weakest link in this theory.

[GregoryUrich]

Dr. Greening has written a withering critique (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html#341) of the new report and has submitted it to NIST as public comment. Nothing in his critique supports CD but NIST does seem to have some real problems.

[Sizzler]

Dr. Greening has written a withering critique (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html#341) of the new report and has submitted it to NIST as public comment. Nothing in his critique supports CD but NIST does seem to have some real problems.

Thanks for the link:)

[Travis]

The very fact Truthers think thermal expansion is a new concept made up by NIST seems to indicate that this report, while interesting to those with an intellectual interest, will do no good in persuading the highly deluded.

A report supporting internal combustion as the most efficient means to propel cars will mean nothing to someone who doesn't even acknowledge that cars exist.

[Spud1k]

Voting 'no change'. By the time the WTC7 report came out, the only truthers left were the ones that would never be swayed no matter what. They've never been able to prove that it had to be CD and they still can't.

[Sizzler]

Greening's paper got bumped of of the front page at 9-11 blogger. haha. How ironic.

[enrique]

I don't think it will change anything. It adds one more tool to debate, just as the previous reports.

[Pardalis]

There is no debate. Everything points to a non-intentional collapse. There's still zero evidence for a CD.

The game is not set at 50/50. The CD camp still has 0.

[nicepants]

No change.

It's not of much use when debating truthers, because they just reject it as they do any evidence they don't like.

[Corsair 115]

The game is not set at 50/50. The CD camp still has 0.I'd saying giving them a zero is being charitable. I'm mark them in negative territory personally.

[Heiwa]

The FEA software used by NIST in chapter 11 evidently gives incorrect results. A heated element cannot produce a force that shears off bolts and rip apart welds. I just started a new thread about it.