Official story: why believe it?

JamesB said:
Oh really, name all the scientists who have experience studying building collapses who significantly disagree with the conclusions of NIST.

I am waiting...
Click to expand...
"Oh really, name all the scientists who have experience studying building collapses who significantly disagree with the conclusions of NIST."

Name the number of buildings like the twin towers that have collapsed after being used for years? How many experts are there then?
The highly educated people who question official story list their reason at various websites & published books.

Checkout ae911truth.org for list of qualified scientist & architects.
Check out journalof911studies.com for scientific reasoning, Greening has done it it won't hurt you to read thru site.
David Griscom with over 185 peer reviewed papers and being one the the most sourced scientist in the world has a much more qualified opinion of the proper sceintific method than anybody at JREF. If anybody wished to read what he has to say about 9-11 google "hand waving" By Griscom.
Maybe you can tell me why I should ignore his opinion?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Because it is the only explanation to the otherwise unexplanable mystery of what happened on September 11th.
Click to expand...
"Because it is the only explanation to the otherwise unexplanable mystery of what happened on September 11th"

your statement is illogical and has no scientific reasoning behind it. There are numerous explanations and theories.
 
WhiteLion said:
A simple question, with a simple answer, that's where the facts take us.

Certainly, several qualified scientists (in their respective fields) disagree with it for various reasons, then again several otherwise (in a variety of fields) qualified scientists believe and have believed it's true that some people can talk to the dead or that the Earth is just 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...
"Certainly, several qualified scientists (in their respective fields) disagree with it for various reasons, then again several otherwise (in a variety of fields) qualified scientists believe and have believed it's true that some people can talk to the dead or that the Earth is just 6,000 years old."

Are you saying highly qualified scientist believe earth is only 6000 years old?
Or maybe you are comparing the nist investigators to biblical schoolars?
maybe if we stick to the scientific points being made by the highly qualified scientist who disagree with official story we can get somewhere?
 
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Click to expand...


Note: The 9/11 commission report is not absolute. It is a "best guess" based on available evidence at the time. And based on that evidence, it is probably more true than not. Unfortunately, the only ones who really know what happened that day are not alive.


Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...


Many? How many? Can you list them? Out of how many total qualified scientists?
 
rightshu said:
Which qualified scientists don't believe the "official story"? From whence have they received their credentials? In what venues have they stated that they disbelieve?

The reason that people should believe the "official story" is because it is rigorous. It fits all of the known facts of what occurred on 11 September 2001, with a minimum of speculation, and the reports produced that explain the chain of events both up to and after the impact of the airplanes into the towers have been reviewed by at least hundreds -- and more likely thousands -- of individuals with areas of expertise directly relevant to the reports.

And yet, no professional organization of mechanical engineers has come out and said, "We have problems with the NIST report". No papers are being published in peer-reviewed leading trade journals (note: JONES does not count as a peer-reviewed leading trade journal) that call into question the fundamental assumptions of the NIST report, or (as far as I know) the NIST report's conclusions.

When the balance of evidence -- not quotes, not YouTube videos, but hard, substantive evidence -- is weighed, it falls with a resounding "THUD" on the side of the "official story".

If you have hard, substantive evidence that the "official story" is factually incorrect, please present it.
Click to expand...
it is very unscientific to assume other highly educated scientist are just "wrong" because. it is vert easy to check out journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org to read very compelling reasons, and very scientific reasons they have issues with official story.
Am I to take your word over the word of David Grsicom, or Gordon Ross? Why would any reasonable person do that? Greening at least will argue his views scientifically with Ross at journalof911studies. thats how intelligent mature people discuss issues, head on debateing the facts.
 
it is vert easy to check out journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org to read very compelling reasons, and very scientific reasons they have issues with official story.
Click to expand...

The accounts at those Troofer sites are neither credible nor scientific. Just because somebody calls them self a scientist and then begins to spout a bunch of Troofer crap doesn't mean that you should just accept what they're saying.
 
lisabob2 said:
the explanation of Steven Jones & Richard Gage makes more sense to me. why not give some facts or evidence we could discuss?
Click to expand...
Jones says the building was brought down with thermite. He made this up 4 years after 9/11. Jones is a liar! Gage, repeats what Jones said, he has not made up anything new, he uses Jones' junk. Gage is a lair too.

You are unable to present facts to support these liars and save them from being liars. Why?

lisabob2 said:
it is very unscientific to assume other highly educated scientist are just "wrong" because. it is vert easy to check out journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org to read very compelling reasons, and very scientific reasons they have issues with official story.
Am I to take your word over the word of David Grsicom, or Gordon Ross? Why would any reasonable person do that? Greening at least will argue his views scientifically with Ross at journalof911studies. thats how intelligent mature people discuss issues, head on debateing the facts.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea why millions of Engineers and Scientist do not join the liars at 911studies and ae911truth? Do you understand over 99.99 percent of all engineers do not agree with you or the guys you say are scientist on 9/11 false information? When you post these web sites you are exposing your lack of knowledge on 9/11.

Jones is sick! He lies about 9/11 and he spits on the graves of 9/11 dead when he makes jokes, posts jokes on his presentation about boxcutters sold at a gun store. Jones is a sick liar who goes around fooling people who can not think for themselves. ("Answers to Objections and Questions", Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., July 18, 2006) Jones takes the PhD down with his junk science and made up information on 9/11.

Are you joining the sick ideas of Jones?
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
it is very unscientific to assume other highly educated scientist are just "wrong" because. it is vert easy to check out journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org to read very compelling reasons, and very scientific reasons they have issues with official story.
Am I to take your word over the word of David Grsicom, or Gordon Ross? Why would any reasonable person do that? Greening at least will argue his views scientifically with Ross at journalof911studies. thats how intelligent mature people discuss issues, head on debateing the facts.
Click to expand...

Yes that would be very unscientific. Luckily the facts are what prove them to be wrong, not assumptions. And pointing out that their studies are based on very bad assumptions is another important factor.

When a scientist makes a claim such as thermite based on the presence of a material that is common in the construction of the building, you can pretty much rule out his claim having anything credible in it.

The problem is that you don't read anything from either side, you just assume that the side who is telling you what you want to hear is correct and ignoring the evidence provided by the other side because it puts a dent in your pre-determined beliefs. The real question is why you need to be dishonest with yourself in order to protect your conspiracy beliefs. What is it about your life that depends on their being a conspiracy enough to ignore the facts.

I suppose you also believe that the WTC was brought down by space beams using dustification (no, it's not a real word) because a scientist with a PHD said so (and yes this is a true story). So do you believe Dr Judy Wood and her claim of space beams? After all she is a scientist and in the same web sites you posted. Of course her claims completely contradict Jones and Gage (though cage is just a spoksman and has no actual research of his own). So who is right? They both fit your criteria. They both can't be right.

Do you understand this paradox in your logic?
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Well, Mrs.Lisaboob2.... Do you have any evidence to dispute the massive investigations that were held? Seeing we are into the 7th year in the truth movement you must have something! Please share with us your findings along with the list of the "scientist."

Do not alter user names for the purpose of insulting another member.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
Click to expand...
Why don't you check out ae911truth.org & journalof911studies.com Try to read thru sites with a critical mind not a closed one.
Greening has posted on journalof911studies you can read the scientific debate with Ross he has. At least at journalof911studies they post opposing views from people who disagree with them.
911myths or debunking911 doesn't do it.
 
CptColumbo said:
More scientists agree with the evidence based generally accepted story, and show the reasons why by publishing peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Also, no one has put forward an alternative hypothesis that isn't based on bad science and (in some cases) outright lies.
Click to expand...
you are stating opinions, not fact. Many highly qualified scientist do not find official story credible. David Griscom who has very impressive credentials and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist is one of them.
 
This guy?

-----
David L. Griscom, PhD
Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society.
Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).
Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).
Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Ok, his credentials are impressive. He is a full blown member of the truth movement, seems to believe the CD theory of the WTC Collapse.

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

2. Is a member of SF911TJ (S. Jones site/group)

I would note that this man is a PhD Physicist, and yet, dispite begging his fellow scientists and engineers to produce papers on the collapses and submit them to REAL journals, he has not, that I can see, done so himself.

His expertise is apparently in Geology Physics, Silica it seems.

His "Political Leanings" are full blown trutherism...
http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html

Feels the 2004 elections were stolen
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_gr_060606_sleuthing_stolen_ele.htm


TAM:)
------

The above is from a recent post I made elsewhere on this forum.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
you are stating opinions, not fact. Many highly qualified scientist do not find official story credible. David Griscom who has very impressive credentials and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist is one of them.
Click to expand...

one of the most sourced in what? You mean overall, in the world, he is one of the most sourced scientists, regardless of area of science?

Got a source for that?

TAM:)
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Yes that would be very unscientific. Luckily the facts are what prove them to be wrong, not assumptions. And pointing out that their studies are based on very bad assumptions is another important factor.

When a scientist makes a claim such as thermite based on the presence of a material that is common in the construction of the building, you can pretty much rule out his claim having anything credible in it.

The problem is that you don't read anything from either side, you just assume that the side who is telling you what you want to hear is correct and ignoring the evidence provided by the other side because it puts a dent in your pre-determined beliefs. The real question is why you need to be dishonest with yourself in order to protect your conspiracy beliefs. What is it about your life that depends on their being a conspiracy enough to ignore the facts.

I suppose you also believe that the WTC was brought down by space beams using dustification (no, it's not a real word) because a scientist with a PHD said so (and yes this is a true story). So do you believe Dr Judy Wood and her claim of space beams? After all she is a scientist and in the same web sites you posted. Of course her claims completely contradict Jones and Gage (though cage is just a spoksman and has no actual research of his own). So who is right? They both fit your criteria. They both can't be right.

Do you understand this paradox in your logic?
Click to expand...
do you see you are doing what you accuse me of?
I have read from both sides. I see you are making accusations of Steven Jones that are wrong. He has shown thru scientific tests that the sulfur was not from calcium sulfate found in drywall, because there was no calcium in it. His results have been corroborated by 3 other independent labs. So maybe you should check out the "facts" you get from 911myths. Maybe you should try & figure out which people are really using the proper scientific methods. People like Steven Jones & David Griscom have spent most of their lives using the proper scientific methods & have much experience doing excellent scientific work. Their "assumptions" could be wrong but they have scientific reasons for them. And with well over 200 peer reviewed papers between them I know they knwo their stuff.
 
lisabob2 said:
do you see you are doing what you accuse me of?
I have read from both sides. I see you are making accusations of Steven Jones that are wrong. He has shown thru scientific tests that the sulfur was not from calcium sulfate found in drywall, because there was no calcium in it. His results have been corroborated by 3 other independent labs. So maybe you should check out the "facts" you get from 911myths. Maybe you should try & figure out which people are really using the proper scientific methods. People like Steven Jones & David Griscom have spent most of their lives using the proper scientific methods & have much experience doing excellent scientific work. Their "assumptions" could be wrong but they have scientific reasons for them. And with well over 200 peer reviewed papers between them I know they knwo their stuff.
Click to expand...


I've read through most of the "papers" in the "journal". They're complete crap. And I'm saying that from an engineering stand point.
 
T.A.M. said:
This guy?

-----
David L. Griscom, PhD
Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society.
Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).
Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).
Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Ok, his credentials are impressive. He is a full blown member of the truth movement, seems to believe the CD theory of the WTC Collapse.

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/

2. Is a member of SF911TJ (S. Jones site/group)

I would note that this man is a PhD Physicist, and yet, dispite begging his fellow scientists and engineers to produce papers on the collapses and submit them to REAL journals, he has not, that I can see, done so himself.

His expertise is apparently in Geology Physics, Silica it seems.

His "Political Leanings" are full blown trutherism...
http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html

Feels the 2004 elections were stolen
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_gr_060606_sleuthing_stolen_ele.htm


TAM:)
------

The above is from a recent post I made elsewhere on this forum.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Yes Griscom is very impressive and has shown thru science how election was stolen.
He is one of the worlds most sourced scientist which means other scientist uses Griscom work. He knows good science from bad. Read "hand waving the physics of 911" by Griscom. He explains things very well.
 
lisabob2 said:
do you see you are doing what you accuse me of?
I have read from both sides. I see you are making accusations of Steven Jones that are wrong. He has shown thru scientific tests that the sulfur was not from calcium sulfate found in drywall, because there was no calcium in it. His results have been corroborated by 3 other independent labs. So maybe you should check out the "facts" you get from 911myths. Maybe you should try & figure out which people are really using the proper scientific methods. People like Steven Jones & David Griscom have spent most of their lives using the proper scientific methods & have much experience doing excellent scientific work. Their "assumptions" could be wrong but they have scientific reasons for them. And with well over 200 peer reviewed papers between them I know they knwo their stuff.
Click to expand...

No I am not doing what I accuse you of doing. You ARE doing what I am accusing you of doing and no you have NOT read both sides. You haven't even thought about reading both sides. You haven't even read EITHER side as far as the actual papers.

And you continue to do it here. You claim that Jones is right because he uses scientific test. Right there is a flat out LIE. No he has NOT. And his assumptions (not tests) have been flat out proven wrong. His claim that there was thermite used means that there would HAVE to be barium nitrate found. There was NONE found. Absolutely NONE. That PROVES (notice the word PROVE) him wrong. 100% absolutely wrong. Since you are saying he is being scientific, can YOU explain this problem? And again, he is wrong on the calcium claim.

Proper scientific method? You mean by making vast assumptions, that's proper scientific method? Who are you kidding here? And then to claim those finds are peer reviewed? Once again, that is a LIE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom