TFTRH #30 - Tom: 9/11 - Why We Believe and Change

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq-xxf35PzY


Tom has dabbled in a few conspiracy theories over the years, and still thinks there are some significant questions that have never been answered about why the World Trade Center buildings fell down the way they did on 9/11. We talk about how he came to believe what he does, how it has changed over the years, and what evidence it make take for him to feel the question is resolved.

 
Last edited:

Comments

Nice interview. A good example of what makes Metabunk so nice. There is a huge difference between bunk and viewpoints.

Bunk is that the beam was cut before the building fell.

Viewpoint is that NIST or the government should feel some obligation to explain every little engineering detail to a bunch of laymen on the internet. (no offense, Tom. I agreed with everything else you said in the interview..except when you bashed on Bush. ).

I didn't really follow what Tom meant by NIST should use the scientific method.
 
His ideas about the scientific method were something I would have liked to hear more of. He was saying things like, they shouldn't just give a simple yes or no, they should use the scientific method - and I think there was a point where you elaborated on how they'd come to the yes or no, but it was as though he'd just assumed they were talking off the top of their head after maybe looking at a few photos. It would have been interesting to hear exactly what he thought they should do, and have him understand what they actually did.

It also seemed quite similar to his ideas about the media not challenging the mainstream view - particularly with regard to WMDs and the war in Iraq - when it seems to me that there was plenty of that; at least here in the UK. So it felt a lot like his arguments were coming from a place of not having all the information. Though I suppose it would be difficult to challenge that without having all the necessary references at hand.

I would also have liked to have heard exactly what it was he found so convincing in Richard Gage's stuff: would have been pretty sweet if he'd mentioned the beam cut.

A nice conversation though, very respectful and civil. Hopefully it'll get him researching more.
 
I didn't really follow what Tom meant by NIST should use the scientific method.
He thinks that the scientific method uses experiments to test theories. So he thinks that NIST should have done some experiments to validate their theory about the collapse of WTC7 being from fire. This seem to crossover with a desire for a convincing demonstration - basically he wants NIST to build a scale model, set it on fire, and show that it collapses in a similar manner to WTC7.
 
So he thinks that NIST should have done some experiments to validate their theory about the collapse of WTC7 being from fire
oh. that's one of those disconnects he was talking about. I'm watching a different movie :)

well, observation is part of the scientific method. My understanding of the report is they ruled out explosives from observation (their own of thousands of hours of video and photographs, and interviewing eye/ear witnesses).

edit add: the above sounds like that's all they did.. but obviously they used numbers to calculate the needed size of explosives, sound decibels etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Top