Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

uke2se said:
Around 3000 people died in this terrorist attack, and I find it insulting in the extreme when people attempt to shift the blame away from the murderers.
Click to expand...

That is the most irritating thing about truthers. They don't care about the casualties,all they care about is feeding their silly egos. They might as well cut out the middle man by stopping with using the internet and directly urinating on the memory of the victims.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What scientific fact? Again no sarcasm.
Click to expand...

The scientific fact of airplanes colliding with buildings at full speed causing catastrophic damage and fires. The scientific facts of fire weakening steel. The scientific fact of something gaining momentum as it falls. The scientific fact of a single floor being unable to support the weight of several floors crashing down onto it. The scientific fact of unfought fires being able to cause catastrophic damage in a building, even without it being hit by an airplane. Etc etc etc...

Then there's all the evidence. The security camera footage of the hijackers boarding the airplanes. The martyrdom videos that the hijackers made. Osama Bin Laden admitting to the crime. The radio traffic recordings. The radar tracks. The many videos showing the WTC towers collapsing from the impact points. Etc etc etc...

Then there's the investigations into these events, three of them so far, showing how the hijackers did it, who dreamed up and financed the operation, why the buildings fell, what building and fireproofing codes can be changed to prevent this from happening again. Etc etc etc...

In short, my view is based on evidence and analysis from world leading experts. Your's is based on a guy working outside his field in a youtube video.
 
uke2se said:
The scientific fact of airplanes colliding with buildings at full speed causing catastrophic damage and fires. The scientific facts of fire weakening steel. The scientific fact of something gaining momentum as it falls. The scientific fact of a single floor being unable to support the weight of several floors crashing down onto it. The scientific fact of unfought fires being able to cause catastrophic damage in a building, even without it being hit by an airplane. Etc etc etc...

Then there's all the evidence. The security camera footage of the hijackers boarding the airplanes. The martyrdom videos that the hijackers made. Osama Bin Laden admitting to the crime. The radio traffic recordings. The radar tracks. The many videos showing the WTC towers collapsing from the impact points. Etc etc etc...

Then there's the investigations into these events, three of them so far, showing how the hijackers did it, who dreamed up and financed the operation, why the buildings fell, what building and fireproofing codes can be changed to prevent this from happening again. Etc etc etc...

In short, my view is based on evidence and analysis from world leading experts. Your's is based on a guy working outside his field in a youtube video.
Click to expand...

What makes someone an expert over someone else? I mean their credentials are the same, same type of degree, experience...etc etc. There is evidence that suggest something other then the official story is there not?
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
What makes someone an expert over someone else? I mean their credentials are the same, same type of degree, experience...etc etc.
Click to expand...
The credibility of their claims, and the research they put behind them makes or breaks them. Would you care if I was an architect if I claimed that a small building dropped from 5 miles won't do damage to a larger building of similar construction? Of course you wouldn't, you would label me utterly insane whether I was an laymen or an architect.*

*Then again maybe you actually believe Heiwa style theories?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The credibility of their claims, and the research they put behind them makes or breaks them. Would you care if I was an architect if I claimed that a small building dropped from 5 miles won't do damage to a larger building of similar construction? Of course you wouldn't, you would label me utterly insane whether I was an idiot laymen or an architect.*

*Then again maybe you actually believe that
Click to expand...

What makes "their" claims any more credible?
 
tmd2_1 said:
What makes someone an expert over someone else? I mean their credentials are the same, same type of degree, experience...etc etc.
Click to expand...

An expert in physics is not necessarily an expert in chemistry. An expert in chemistry is not necessarily an expert in physics. Those are different fields of science.

Tmd, an expert is only as good as what he's saying. Physics tells us that momentum is a real thing. When some twoofer says momentum isn't real, it doesn't matter what letters he has after his name, he is still wrong. The over all picture of what happened on 911 isn't hard to understand, even for someone without a PhD. When it comes to the technical details we need to refer to experts in the relevant field. Your youtube guy is not such an expert. The people who wrote the NIST report are.

tmd2_1 said:
There is evidence that suggest something other then the official story is there not?
Click to expand...

No, there is not.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
What makes "their" claims any more credible?
Click to expand...
As one example, the architect who claims the fire performance of a steel-framed construction will match the performance of a reinforced concrete core construction with substantially higher fire resistance rating will not have credibility because he shows an incapacity to differentiate material properties of building materials.

As a second example, the architect who claims the tube on tube core design of the WTC is the same as the traditional column grid structural system will not have credibility because he does not know the difference between how the two structural systems carry loads.

Sounds like a group of architects and engineers I've heard of.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
An expert in physics is not necessarily an expert in chemistry. An expert in chemistry is not necessarily an expert in physics. Those are different fields of science.



No, there is not.
Click to expand...

But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
 
TMD I was not in New York the day that 9/11 happened. Like many of the people here old enough to remember the day in question I saw it on national television. And when someone told me what was going on my first reaction was to ask them "What action/disaster movie are they advertising?" It was that unbelievable.

I haven't seen any of the many reports into the events of that day, never looked at any evidence apart from the initial television reports.

I also never doubted the official reports because I seen the live television report and it was frigging obvious what was going on. What is so hard to accept about it?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
As one example, the architect who claims the fire performance of a steel-framed construction will match the performance of a reinforced concrete core construction with substantially higher fire resistance rating will not have credibility because he shows an incapacity to differentiate material properties of building materials.

As a second example, the architect who claims the tube on tube core design of the WTC is the same as the traditional column grid structural system will not have credibility because he does not know the difference between how the two structural systems carry loads.

Sounds like a group of architects and engineers I've heard of.
Click to expand...

Have all members of AE911(or any one who opposed the official story) made in correct claims?
 
tmd2_1 said:
But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
Click to expand...

Read my edit, please.

After that, please provide any scientific articles written by these "experts" on 911 that was published in a respected scientific journal. No, the Journal of 911 studies or whatever it's called is not such a journal, and no, Jones' thermite paper is not such an article, as it is 1, bogus, 2, not peer reviewed and 3, not published in a respected journal.

This challenge shouldn't be too hard to live up to, as we are constantly reminded of the 1500 people with letters after their names who are in Gage's little club.
 
tmd2_1 said:
But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
Click to expand...

I doubt that there are, but even if they were, what papers have they produced that presents a plausible alternative theory backed by credible evidence that has stood up to the scrutiny of their peers?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Have all members of AE911(or any one who opposed the official story) made in correct claims?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the members of AE911 have made any relevant claims at all, which is why I'm asking you to provide their peer-reviewed papers for us.
 
tmd2_1 said:
But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
Click to expand...

Credentials......i.e. licenses are granted for displaying minimum levels of knowledge.

I am a licensed architect (20+ years) with a NCARB certificate. Legally I can design any type structure, from a garage to a 110 story building. Am I qualified to design every type of structure ....... not at all. Do some licensed professionals think because they are licensed that they are qualified to design any structure......yes......and those are the runs to run away from.

the AE troofer crowd is composed of those type individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom