Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

1. Name the "qualified" scientists (biologists and software engineers etc...do not count as qualified with respect to the collapses).

2. Besides their opinions (which are worthless without science of their own to back them up), what scientific papers/analysis/theories have they produced, and please provide links so we can read.

without 1,2 your argument is worthless...

TAM

ae91truth.org
journalof911studies.com
patriotsquestion911.com please read thru sites with a open & critical mind

 

[HereticHulk]

But you have zero facts!

How are facts relevant when potential facts, evidence and investigations are destroyed, stymied and covered-up? (CIA Tapes for 1)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

Facts are facts? Yet you make claims about the NIST report which prove you didn't read it because your claims about it are quotes from CT web sites which are incorrect.

But since facts are facts, can you please explain this scientific method Jones used when he submitted a supposedly melted peice of steel from WTC as proof of a demolition, yet the steel had unburned pieces of paper imbedded in it? Can you please show us what kind of scientific method Jones used in explaining paper that doesn't burn in temperatures hot enough to melt steel?

You also didn't answer my question about how the primary material left from thermite which you claim Jones has proven to be correct was found to be 0%? And how about how the ingredient you claim is is factual about that he used to make his claim was found in far too much abundance to support his claim? Maybe it's in one of his peer reviewed papers about finding Jesus in early America?

I mean coming form someone who is claiming all the other scientists are wrong, yet provides no proof of such, you should have no problem answering these questions right? Maybe you could include the errors in the NIST report.

 

[lisabob2]

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?

"The Laws of physics have been broken,"
no, what people say is
"the laws of physics would have to be broken for official theory to be true"
that is the reason they don't believe official theory.
Trying to say otherwise is just word playing and does not change anything

 

[beachnut]

hearsay statements are not facts

How are facts relevant when potential facts, evidence and investigations are destroyed, stymied and covered-up? (CIA Tapes for 1)

Still no facts. Darn, have you wasted 6 years and not even tried to research this. You just post statements not based on facts or logic. Start a thread with HH top facts why 9/11 is whatever!

 

[Pardalis]

How are facts relevant when evidence and investigations are stymied and covered-up? (CIA Tapes for 1)

And there lies the Truth movement. No evidence because the evidence is covered-up...

A never-ending cycle.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

ae91truth.org
journalof911studies.com
patriotsquestion911.com please read thru sites with a open & critical mind

It's because we have seen those sites that we ask these questions. Oh wait, did you just assume the names on those lists are qualified scientists because it told you so? Did ya bother to look at the credentials of them?

And by open and critical mind, you mean a mind that tells you what you want to hear and ignores everything else? Gotcha. Maybe you can site some passages from some of this research that is so conclusive.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

ae91truth.org
journalof911studies.com
patriotsquestion911.com please read thru sites with a open & critical mind

did patriots question 9/11 ever remove the 9/11 victims who they list as "survivors and family members" who question the official story?

ETA: no, they didnt

 

[Jonnyclueless]

no, what people say is
"the laws of physics would have to be broken for official theory to be true"
that is the reason they don't believe official theory.
Trying to say otherwise is just word playing and does not change anything

You are referring to idiots then? Please explain which laws of physics were broken in the official story (whatever that means) and specifically where. Let's see you back these claims up for once.

 

[peteweaver]

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 one is saying that steel was melted by the fire OneShot.

Take a look at this, to see what people are saying about steel and fire:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en...ire_resistance/effect_of_temperature_profile/

Its a steel industry website, not a 9/11 site.

"
The basic high temperature strength curve, Figure 31, has been generated by testing a series of small samples of steel in the laboratory, where the whole of each test sample is at a uniform temperature and is axially loaded.
When these conditions are repeated in full scale member tests, eg unprotected axially loaded columns, then failure does indeed occur at 550°C. But if a member is not uniformly heated then, when the hotter part of the section reaches its limiting temperature, it will yield plastically and transfer load to cooler regions of the section, which will still act elastically. As the temperature rises further, more load is transferred from the hot region by plastic yielding until eventually the load in the cool regions becomes so high that they too become plastic and the member fails."


The steel industry says that structural steel can fail at 550 degrees C, thats almost 1000 degrees BELOW melting point.

 

[beachnut]

if you say it you prove you have no facts (LOP broken)

"The Laws of physics have been broken,"
no, what people say is
"the laws of physics would have to be broken for official theory to be true"
that is the reason they don't believe official theory.
Trying to say otherwise is just word playing and does not change anything

Oops, when you say it you are showing your lack of training in physics because you are not saying anything but you have no facts and you are making up lies about 9/11. It is what they say to fool you into believing some lies and yet they never say what it is. But you missed the point, they say stupid stuff like faster than free fall. Oops, that is a lie. Wake up, learn physics before you say the laws of physics were broken. I makes you look like a fool.

I warned you it was a red flag of woo.

 

[lisabob2]

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.

It still does not change the facts no matter what your opinion. Using your logic, everybody here cherry picks. I at least have read what the otherside has said & written.
I do not just read 911myths.com & believe that what they "quote" is accurate, I check it out.

 

[lisabob2]

Still no facts. Darn, have you wasted 6 years and not even tried to research this. You just post statements not based on facts or logic. Start a thread with HH top facts why 9/11 is whatever!

those are facts they posted

 

[beachnut]

It still does not change the facts no matter what your opinion. Using your logic, everybody here cherry picks. I at least have read what the otherside has said & written.
I do not just read 911myths.com & believe that what they "quote" is accurate, I check it out.

You are not reading and trying to research 9/11, you are just spewing the hearsay junk of 9/11 truth.
You messed up the Chief Structural Engineer and have not retracted your error yet. All you ideas on 9/11 based on 9/11 truth are in error! Good luck.

 

[OneShotKi11]

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?

I agree with you but the way in which you phrased your comment as if it proved your point was wrong. Everyone knows the laws of physics were not broke on 9/11, but truthers use this fact and state that the buildings falling by themselves at the speed inwhich they did is not possible thus would be breaking the laws of physics if done without intervention. This is one of the main reasons they feel bombs were in the building because without explosive devices they feel there is no reason the buildings should have fallen in the way they did. Thus "breaking the laws of physics"

9/11 truthers honestly dont believe the laws of physics were broke that day thats what your getting wrong! They dont think the buildings could have fallen that fast without explosives devices and when people try and tell them they did they say sarcastically "well then i guess the laws physics were broken".

You cant use this logic as reasoning to call them liers and stupid when they are using it as more of a catch phrase to draw uninformed people into there movement.

Hope you understand what i mean now.
I know the laws of physics werent broken that day....
9/11 truthers know it....
The only difference is that they think for the official story to be true that the laws of physics would have had to been broken that day, which in turn would prove the official story as bogus because these laws cant be broken.

 

[DGM]

ae91truth.org
journalof911studies.com
patriotsquestion911.com please read thru sites with a open & critical mind

I ask you to do the same. Read through these sites with the mindset that they're wrong (critical). Then try to prove them right (open mind). Good luck with that.

 

[lisabob2]

You are referring to idiots then? Please explain which laws of physics were broken in the official story (whatever that means) and specifically where. Let's see you back these claims up for once.

read
"Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method" at journalof911studies.com
Dr. Steven E. Jones for reasons I support
Again, laws of physics were not broken thats why I don't believe official story
you can google "hand waving the physics of 911" by David Griscom

 

[lisabob2]

Oops, when you say it you are showing your lack of training in physics because you are not saying anything but you have no facts and you are making up lies about 9/11. It is what they say to fool you into believing some lies and yet they never say what it is. But you missed the point, they say stupid stuff like faster than free fall. Oops, that is a lie. Wake up, learn physics before you say the laws of physics were broken. I makes you look like a fool.

I warned you it was a red flag of woo.

I am not making anything up.
You are mistaken. I just believe Steven Jones, Gordon Ross, & David Griscom are right. Are you saying they are making this all up?
It is really not much use just to dismiss a point by saying "you are lying" why not get specific?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Again, laws of physics were not broken thats why I don't believe official story

so you dont believe the official story because its consistent with the laws of physics?

 

[lisabob2]

You are not reading and trying to research 9/11, you are just spewing the hearsay junk of 9/11 truth.
You messed up the Chief Structural Engineer and have not retracted your error yet. All you ideas on 9/11 based on 9/11 truth are in error! Good luck.

Google John Skilling engineer of the twin towers. Look at engineering firm
Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson. What no Robertson? maybe robertson was under Skilling as any article during construction clearly shows.

In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,” whom Skilling “assigned… to help him prepare a proposal” to the Port Authority’s board. Skilling’s firm was named Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his subordinate."

need any more facts?