Official story: why believe it?

[FactCheck]

because some engineers think Jones doesn't know engineering does not take away his expertise in physics. Steven Jones has PhD in Physics, his papers are about physics.
Others like Gordon Ross have done papers on the engineering standpoint.

Please answer ALL the questions:

1) Do you even know what field would be most qualified?

2) Can you name ONE peer reviewed paper written in a respected scientific journal saying the towers could not have collapsed by impact damage and fire?

and now another one:

3) do you think physics encompasses all science and that a physicist can design tall buildings?

 

[FactCheck]

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

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

NEXT...

 

[FactCheck]

I love the fact that a "critical thinker" such as yourself can dismiss my statements as lies but not prove that one is. I would think that it would be easy for you to expose my "lies." If you would care to post a "lie" from me I will respond with my reasons or facts to back up what I have posted

I have been proving to you you're wrong since my first post yet you deny every fact we present. We have also asked you to prove what you are saying and all you do is point to conspiracy theorists and say third so.

Its dishonest for you to suggest most scientist disagree with the NIST report. Especially since their are more scientist who believe evolution isn't fact or global warming is a hoax.

Find a structural engineer who passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected journal saying the towers couldn't collapse given the evidence we have.

The conspiracy industry would have you believe you need to rebuild the towers in order to test the collapse. That's what you suggest when you say computer simulations aren't good enough. What else can you use to take all the factors into account??? And you buy all of it! Amazing!

 

[beachnut]

I dont believe in the stupid CT theories that most truthers believe about control Demo and whatnot, but there has been some rather interesting research involving money trails The stock market and what not. I do feel there was some foul play involving the events of September 11 and feel that further research might reveal a little more.

At this moment i cant exactly remember where i seen these studies and articles i have read but i will try and find them as soon as possible and post them up. It is an interesting read if you have the time.

Do you trade in the stock market. If you do trade, and you do bad, you get caught. You break a rule, and they get you. So if there were bad guys trading on 9/11 for the airliners, we have them. There is a trail. But then you knew that. I made a simple error and they were all over me; gee they keep records and can track transactions. If you are doing something stupid, do not do a Martha Stewart when you are planning on murder and you do not want to get caught, the stock market will get you caught if someone investigates. Not a good idea to couple a terrorist act with stock junk!

The money is another red flag; the truther fail to mention the whole story on the money. Look it up, it is interesting how little money was used.

Box cutter - 5 dollars
Flight training - 100 plus bucks an hour
Cheap Apartments - xxxx Bucks a month
757/767 simulator time - 2000 plus bucks per hour
Thinking up cutting throats and doing it - Free
Hijacking plane as weapon – free (minus ticket)

I am trying, but there are no money items that mean anything! Anyone could fund them and not know they were not trying to spread Islam, or sell the Koran, or learn to fly. No red flags like buying 4000 pounds of fertilizer without a tax exemption.

Money trail seems be doo-doo due to how little money it takes to highjack a plane and do the job. The rest of the money issues are BS.

There was not a significant amount of money involved; this was not the Manhattan Project~!

Clown Richard says, if you believe any "stupid CT theories" like the money "wingnut ideas" then you are a truther, just as bad as those you think believe "wingnut ideas".

clown richard

 

[FactCheck]

because it is NOT. as many qualified scientist have pointed out

Produce evidence in the form of a scientific paper proving it or stop saying it. He is a perfect example of your ignorance.

Unfortunately for you and the conspiracy industry, it's one thing to make statements and another to back them up with evidence.

 

[FactCheck]

Where did you show Jones making up lies i would like to read it???

Also Lisa please answer what laws of physics you believe were broken that day i might be of some help since i read alot about this topic and still remain slightly neutral.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Isn't that enough?????????

 

[OneShotKi11]

Do you trade in the stock market. If you do trade, and you do bad, you get caught. You break a rule, and they get you. So if there were bad guys trading on 9/11 for the airliners, we have them. There is a trail. But then you knew that. I made a simple error and they were all over me; gee they keep records and can track transactions. If you are doing something stupid, do not do a Martha Stewart when you are planning on murder and you do not want to get caught, the stock market will get you caught if someone investigates. Not a good idea to couple a terrorist act with stock junk!

The money is another red flag; the truther fail to mention the whole story on the money. Look it up, it is interesting how little money was used.

Box cutter - 5 dollars
Flight training - 100 plus bucks an hour
Cheap Apartments - xxxx Bucks a month
757/767 simulator time - 2000 plus bucks per hour
Thinking up cutting throats and doing it - Free
Hijacking plane as weapon – free (minus ticket)

I am trying, but there are no money items that mean anything! Anyone could fund them and not know they were not trying to spread Islam, or sell the Koran, or learn to fly. No red flags like buying 4000 pounds of fertilizer without a tax exemption.

Money trail seems be doo-doo due to how little money it takes to highjack a plane and do the job. The rest of the money issues are BS.

There was not a significant amount of money involved; this was not the Manhattan Project~!

Clown Richard says, if you believe any "stupid CT theories" like the money "wingnut ideas" then you are a truther, just as bad as those you think believe "wingnut ideas".

clown richard

Please stop talking when you are clueless. It seems all you have done is listen to the intelligent people talk and then repeat what they say not knowing what they actually meant.

Who said i was talking anything about how much it would be fund terrorist to hijack a plane? Why are you still on these forums? You are a clown and i cant help but state it please just dont quote me are post a comment or argument in my direction.
I never went into detail about the money trails i said i had read about, yet you decided upon yourself to assume i was talking about Funding terrorists to hijack planes. That is just foolish!
What are you thinking when you post these things? Do you think you are proving a point or making any sense?
Please tell me where i said terrorist were funded?
I will answer that for you...... I DIDNT!!!!

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

Good thing it is just your useless, baseless opinion with no evidence to back it up.

Next!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

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

OMG, you are not serious? These are your responses to my request for evidence, and papers on the matter.

Trolling a little are we?

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

because some engineers think Jones doesn't know engineering does not take away his expertise in physics. Steven Jones has PhD in Physics, his papers are about physics.
Others like Gordon Ross have done papers on the engineering standpoint.

jones's expertise is in nuclear and particle physics, and much of his thermite evidence appears to be based in chemistry

 

[T.A.M.]

lisabob2;

You continue to argue WITHOUT FACTS, using the OPINIONS (without sound science to back them up) of paranoid, agenda driven "scientists". You calim these couple of warped minds are right over the dozens of PhD scientists and engineers that worked for NIST, MIT, FEMA. You do so because it fits into the way you want things to look. You have presented nothing even close to an argument worth addressing on any aspect of 9/11.

For those reasons, and that I tire of your crap, welcome to ignore...bye bye.

TAM

 

[LashL]

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

A never-ending cycle.

Indeed.

The Truth™ movement in a nutshell:

Rinse
Blather
Repeat

 

[JimBenArm]

Indeed.

The Truth™ movement in a nutshell:

Rinse
Blather
Repeat

It's Blather, Rense(dot com), repeat.^TM2007, Hokulele

 

[beachnut]

Please stop talking when you are clueless. It seems all you have done is listen to the intelligent people talk and then repeat what they say not knowing what they actually meant.

Who said i was talking anything about how much it would be fund terrorist to hijack a plane? Why are you still on these forums? You are a clown and i cant help but state it please just dont quote me are post a comment or argument in my direction.
I never went into detail about the money trails i said i had read about, yet you decided upon yourself to assume i was talking about Funding terrorists to hijack planes. That is just foolish!
What are you thinking when you post these things? Do you think you are proving a point or making any sense?
Please tell me where i said terrorist were funded?
I will answer that for you...... I DIDNT!!!!

Money trail!

... interesting research involving money trails The stock market and what not. I do feel there was some foul play involving the events of September 11 ...

Oops, you implied it, but then without smart people telling me you are on the fence I figured it out myself when you posted.
But I do trade stocks, I have made errors and I was punished. So your ideas on stocks are great, but now I guess you do not believe the lies of 9/11 truth on the stupid stock ideas! Done.

And the money trails, no I guess you never mentioned that either, and you agree there is noting in the stupid 9/11 truth money trail lies either. Good, we agree. Done.
But I thought up the post myself. Box cutters - 5 bucks, that is me. Sorry, you think my pathetic junk is from smart people you must not be one.

Please tell me where i said terrorist were funded? I will answer that for you...... I DIDNT!!!!

... interesting research involving money trails ...

Darn, you be wrong again. Are you sure you are not a truther?

... and still remain slightly neutral.

Oh?! just slightly a truther.

Are you still having problems with the "broke the laws of physics" stuff?

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.

… since ive come to the realization that most 9/11 truthers are morons …

OH.

I am just clearly point out your poor debating skills!

… in these stupid debates.

Oh, these are stupid debates, but mine are just poor; cool. I bet you said that because you said this

… since ive come to the realization that most 9/11 truthers are morons …

As of right now i have almost no stance on the subject…

Still not sure if you are a truther or not? It does take time to really understand 9/11. If lisa would take some time to read and understand she/person can explain it to you.

clueless beachnut - or

As of right now i have almost no stance on the subject…

... and still remain slightly neutral.

I love all the clues flowing from you, thank you.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

A never-ending cycle.

That's how you can tell there's a conspiracy. There's no evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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

So the only way the "official story" could be plausible is if it broke the laws of physics. I assume that you are just misspeaking there. Please point out the actual laws of physics that were broken in this "official story" Don't just point to an article which has been debunked and proven wrong, point out the parts that clarify your claim.Quote the section.

And if the laws of physics weren't broken, then why would that be a problem? I would only have a problem if the laws o physics WERE broken, such as are in the claims of Jones and Griscom's claims.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Lisa, please address the questions in post #143.

 

[Max Photon]

Did the Fire-In-Steel crew rule out demolition by heat-weakening, and if so, how?

Name ONE who happens to have expertise in structural fire engineering.

Being a scientist is not enough, possessing the RIGHT type of scientific credentials is what counts.

Zdenek Bazant PhD a Civil Engineer, is qualified in the relevant fields.

Steven Jones PhD (a nuclear physicist) is NOT qualified in the relevant fields.

All the members of the steel in fire forum, possess the relevant qualifications:
http://www.steelinfire.org.uk/contact_Frame-3.html

They do NOT support the controlled demolitions theories (and as a qualified civil engineer myself, I can honestly say that the steel in fire forum, members are absolutely right to disagree with the ridiculous conspiracy theories).

And btw, there is no 'official story' there is however an established consensus amongst experts & journalists as to what happened.

Peteweaver, it seems two modes of controlled demolition were possible:

• cutting (explosive or thermal)
• heat-weakening

Bazant, Blanchard, Jones, (Gravy), all have in common that they only address demolition-by-cutting.

Yet I know of no properly credentialed professional or group that has considered demolition-by-heat-weakening (with the exception of Apollo20's speculative AP model).

Do you know if the Steel-In-Fire crew has ever considered demolition by heat-weakening, and if so, how they ruled it out?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

A little of topic, but something I thought I would add. I was having Dinner with my father over Christmas about the WTC (don't remember how it came up). For a long time he was Donald Trump's head architect and has extensive experience in large buildings/towers. He was telling me how when he saw the 2nd plane hit (on TV of course) that he knew immediately that not only was that building going to come down, but that that one would come down first because of the way it hit the building.

As one of the top architects in the country at one time, he laughs at the notion of people thinking there was a CD.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Peteweaver, it seems two modes of controlled demolition were possible:

• cutting (explosive or thermal)
• heat-weakening

Bazant, Blanchard, Jones, (Gravy), all have in common that they only address demolition-by-cutting.

Yet I know of no properly credentialed professional or group that has considered demolition-by-heat-weakening (with the exception of Apollo20's speculative AP model).

Do you know if the Steel-In-Fire crew has ever considered demolition by heat-weakening, and if so, how they ruled it out?

And what evidence makes you suspect this scenario?