Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

It is interesting to watch a truther try to lure an innocent right in front of us.

Good luck lisabob2.

TAM

lol
I am looking for more info. I have read thru 911myths & journalof911studies and others. I am always open to new information, and different views.

 

[beachnut]

Journal is FAKE, LawOfPhysics are not broke!, and Skilling is not the Chief

John Skilling the chief engineer during construction of the twin towers said they could survive a impact from a fully loaded 707 at 600mph.
3 buildings all with asymetrical damaged fell symetrically all on the same day. The investigations didn't start for over a year. Investigation did not look at all available evidence. Many qualified scientist with nothing to gain have pointed out issues with official story. I find the same 4 or 5 engineers supporting official story while hundreds of scientist have gone public questionin it.
When a PhD in physics says collapse broke laws of physics, unless something else weakened steel columns I think it is foolish to disregard what he has to say without good reason

Read thru journalof911studies.com with a open & critical mind compare what 911myths says Jones says to what he actually does say

The journal of 9/11 studies was started because all the other journals would not publish Jones' paper because it was a lie! So Jones started a fake journal on the web with other liars doing the peer review. So you have found a pit of liars spreading lies. You have failed to find truth, you have found false information and you like it. They count of people like you to fall for the lies! Check it out why are his papers not in real journal? Could it be a lot of the papers are political tripe?

Here is a big fact, when some says the laws of physics were broke they are liars! Even if some evil plot was done, you can not break the laws of physics; they still work! Why are you ignorant on this fact?

WRONG, the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC was Robertson, what does he have to say about your LIE!

Leslie E. Robertson said:
"The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html

Leslie E. Robertson said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Robertson is still around, he has a reason to find the truth, and he says IMPACT, FIRE, COLLAPSE! You have been lied to by idiots on 9/11. JONES!
Please show me the Hundreds of scientist. That is more than 200, I say 340 or more? Show ME. Stop making up stuff and SHOW ME!

 

[DGM]

the speed of collapse was too fast. The steel columns gave about same resistance as air. Prof. Kuttler did some calculations. The fastest collapse time should have been 25 seconds.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

It was slower than through air. Right? So your statement is wrong. Admit it and retract your statement of no resistance. Or do you promote lying.

 

[RickGonja]

lisabob2 wrote "Hey I was wondering what you thought of Nist using computer simulations ? I know the physical evidence does not corroborate with the temps they used in the simultions."

Ok this only a partial answer because I am reviewing the NIST report and your quoted sources. I am new to this but I think I may have been to one of the sites you suggest. Using computer simulations is a valid method if the data is correct. Of course I may be biased being a computer engineering student.

 

[stateofgrace]

Bush administration was warned by Richard Clarke, but they lied about being forwarned.
Did they? yet this secret is known, how is that ?

First it is not a secret.
Second it was in the media
Third you can read Richard Clarke's book

Amazing!! All these warnings and you can read all about it in a book ( I've read it).

Secrets do not remain secret eh ? Unless you have murderded 3000 people , in which case it remains secret for years, yeh right.

 

[lisabob2]

Do you agree with Dr Quintiere?

I like using words & opinions from the otherside to help prove my point. You know using their own words against them. I think Quintiere raises some important issues, whether thats is his intention It doesn't matter. I believe him when he says nist investigation has problems. Jonathan Barnett also had problem with investigation.
" that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.
Barnett said."]

 

[Pardalis]

I like using words & opinions from the otherside to help prove my point.

We know, especially when they are disjointed and out of context.

 

[beachnut]

BUSTED, and you debunk yourself

I like using words & opinions from the otherside to help prove my point. You know using their own words against them. I think Quintiere raises some important issues, whether thats is his intention It doesn't matter. I believe him when he says nist investigation has problems. Jonathan Barnett also had problem with investigation.
" that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.
Barnett said."]

Quintiere agrees the WTC failed due to IMPACT and FIRE. Your Jones made up ideas are BUSTED. Why are you debunking your own ideas?

 

[lisabob2]

The journal of 9/11 studies was started because all the other journals would not publish Jones' paper because it was a lie! So Jones started a fake journal on the web with other liars doing the peer review. So you have found a pit of liars spreading lies. You have failed to find truth, you have found false information and you like it. They count of people like you to fall for the lies! Check it out why are his papers not in real journal? Could it be a lot of the papers are political tripe?

Here is a big fact, when some says the laws of physics were broke they are liars! Even if some evil plot was done, you can not break the laws of physics; they still work! Why are you ignorant on this fact?

WRONG, the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC was Robertson, what does he have to say about your LIE! Robertson is still around, he has a reason to find the truth, and he says IMPACT, FIRE, COLLAPSE! You have been lied to by idiots on 9/11. JONES!
Please show me the Hundreds of scientist. That is more than 200, I say 340 or more? Show ME. Stop making up stuff and SHOW ME!

John Skilling was the chief engineer during construction of the twin towers. Fact Robertson worked under Skilling. Robertson wsn't even a engineer when construction began, he later became a partner in the firm in the 70's Read articles about the tower construction or google John Skilling engineer of twin towers.
Seattle Times article 2/27/1993
"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Robertson started getting credit for being chief engineer after Skilling died

 

[DGM]

I like using words & opinions from the otherside to help prove my point. You know using their own words against them. I think Quintiere raises some important issues, whether thats is his intention It doesn't matter. I believe him when he says nist investigation has problems. Jonathan Barnett also had problem with investigation.
" that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.
Barnett said."]

So it's OK to be deceitful as long as it's for the advancement of the "truth".

 

[lisabob2]

lisabob2 wrote "Hey I was wondering what you thought of Nist using computer simulations ? I know the physical evidence does not corroborate with the temps they used in the simultions."

Ok this only a partial answer because I am reviewing the NIST report and your quoted sources. I am new to this but I think I may have been to one of the sites you suggest. Using computer simulations is a valid method if the data is correct. Of course I may be biased being a computer engineering student.

but don't you agree simulations without valid data are not accurate simulations?
I mean if the data put in the simulations are inaccurate then simutlation is inacurate.
The Nist report is huge, I have read most of it.

 

[stateofgrace]

I like using words & opinions from the otherside to help prove my point. You know using their own words against them. I think Quintiere raises some important issues, whether thats is his intention It doesn't matter. I believe him when he says nist investigation has problems. Jonathan Barnett also had problem with investigation.
" that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.
Barnett said."]

Beaten to it by Beachnut but he is of course correct Dr Quintiere does NOT think the towers were demolished by explosives.

You dear boy pick and choose the quotes you want to fit into your predetermined conclusion. It's called cherry picking.

 

[lisabob2]

So it's OK to be deceitful as long as it's for the advancement of the "truth".

"deceitful"
how am I being deceitful? I am using statements from Quintiere that agree with my beliefs, I do not believe everything Quintiere believes, but some of his opinions are shared by me. I am also pointing out that one of nist's own says physical evidence does not corrobotate their theory which is another reason nist report is not scientific.

 

[HereticHulk]

I'm thourougly convinced that the 'Official Story' is a cover-up. There are aspects that have been glossed over (by the 9/11 omission report) to cover some peoples either a) criminal negligeince or b) complicity in the attacks of 9/11.

That is a conspiracy and needs to be re-investigated!

All of this disputing of credentials and who knows more about engineering is all just a waste of time. I've said it before and I'll say it again....who has benefited from these attacks the most?

The Neo-conservative agenda or Islamic Jihad?

Who's agendas have been furthered more in the wake of 9/11?

 

[lisabob2]

Beaten to it by Beachnut but he is of course correct Dr Quintiere does NOT think the towers were demolished by explosives.

You dear boy pick and choose the quotes you want to fit into your predetermined conclusion. It's called cherry picking.

cherry picking you can call it but I call it confirmation of unscientific investigation.
facts are facts. when the other side points out facts you agree with does it make them nonfacts?

 

[beachnut]

Robertson Chief Structural Engineer

John Skilling was the chief engineer during construction of the twin towers. Fact Robertson worked under Skilling. Robertson wsn't even a engineer when construction began, he later became a partner in the firm in the 70's Read articles about the tower construction or google John Skilling engineer of twin towers.
Seattle Times article 2/27/1993
"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Robertson started getting credit for being chief engineer after Skilling died

WRONG; Robertson signed as Chief; How can you be so bad at simple research. Is this why you believe liars? (very poor research, why are you having problems finding facts?)
Impact design was 180 mph 707, low on fuel lost in fog. On 9/11 the planes hit with 7 to 10 times the energy. You failed to do the math. Stop making up lies.

 

[beachnut]

zero facts, no idea, no clue, just hearsay

I'm thourougly convinced that the 'Official Story' is a cover-up. There are aspects that have been glossed over (by the 9/11 omission report) to cover some peoples either a) criminal negligeince or b) complicity in the attacks of 9/11.

That is a conspiracy and needs to be re-investigated!

But you have zero facts!

 

[DGM]

"deceitful"
how am I being deceitful? I am using statements from Quintiere that agree with my beliefs, I do not believe everything Quintiere believes, but some of his opinions are shared by me. I am also pointing out that one of nist's own says physical evidence does not corrobotate their theory which is another reason nist report is not scientific.

It's called 'cherry picking'. It's when you use statements out of context and contrary to their real meaning to forward an argument. Yes it's deceitful and you admit to doing it on purpose.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Here is a big fact, when some says the laws of physics were broke they are liars! Even if some evil plot was done, you can not break the laws of physics; they still work! Why are you ignorant on this fact? [/COLOR]

No buddy, your a little off on this comment! What they mean when they say "the laws of physics were broke that day" is that if the official account were true then the laws of physics were broke. They say this because they believe it was impossible for the building to have fallen that fast and for fire to melt the steel and what not....
They dont say it in general the way inwhich you have used it in this comment.
So the fact that you called her ingorant with with the use of your clearly wrong terminology is kind of stupid.

Everyone knows the laws of physics cant be broken at the moment as well as the truthers which is why they say "The Laws of physics have been broken in the official story". Which in turn really means them calling the official story a blatant lie!

 

[beachnut]

red flay of woo, laws of physics broken

No buddy, your a little off on this comment! What they mean when they say "the laws of physics were broke that day" is that if the official account were true then the laws of physics were broke. They say this because they believe it was impossible for the building to have fallen that fast and for fire to melt the steel and what not....
They dont say it in general the way inwhich you have used it in this comment.
So the fact that you called her ingorant with with the use of your clearly wrong terminology is kind of stupid.

Everyone knows the laws of physics cant be broken at the moment as well as the truthers which is why they say "The Laws of physics have been broken in the official story". Which in turn really means them calling the official story a blatant lie!

No, I am right. The laws of physics were not broken by anyone on 9/11. I am not sure what you are saying! But when someone says the laws of physics were broke they are showing that they are stupid and believe the liars from 9/11 truth. Simple as that.

When you hear the LOP were broken it is a red flag of woo! Woo of 9/11 truth! That is a fact.

When they say "The Laws of physics have been broken", they are showing how stupid they are! Dumb 9/11 truth uses the most idiotic ideas and makes up lies about 9/11. Why?

Speaking as an Engineer, when a person believes the 9/11 truth doltish statement "laws of physics were broken" (they were not), then they are plain ignorant when it comes to physics and other 9/11 topics. Don't you?