• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official story: why believe it?

lisabob2

Critical Thinker
L
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
258
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
 
would you please stop calling it the "official story'>

IT ISN"T THE OFFICIAL story.

Seems like you've been in a coma for the last 6 years because BESIDES The NIST report , there have been 20+ other papers by INDEPENDANT scientists and engineers that corroborate teh NIST report, and some even went further to explain what happened in those buildings.

YOU seem to be unfamiliar with what has been reported thus far about the collapses, Why dont you stop posting here for a month and take the time to READ every single report ever published, and stop using Conspiarcy sites as your source. YOu can start with Gravy's site, as he links to all these papers.
 
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...
Your answer, however unintended, is right there.
:dl:
 
lisabob2 said:
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...

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

I am waiting...
 
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...

Because it is the only explanation to the otherwise unexplanable mystery of what happened on September 11th.
 
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11.
Many qualified scientist don't believe it.
Click to expand...


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Lisabob can provide us with some peer-reviewed, scientifc evidence proving that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and WTC7 (leaving out, of course, the collapses of the other WTC buildings because they don't lend themselves to conspiracy fantasies) were anything other than what the world witnessed and that Troofers have yet to understand over six years removed.

I imagine that Lisabob will not provide said evidence to back up his/her ridiculous fantasies, but that won't discourage him/her. Why should facts and evidence ruin a great conspiracy fantasy?
 
Last edited:
Because there is:

1. Valid perpetrator(s).
2. Motive.
3. Physical Evidence.
4. Eyewitness testimony.

Need anything else?
 
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...

I wouldn't put it quite like that, there are those that do disagree with NIST over certain aspects of their report, though whether or not you consider such disagreements to be significant is a different issue. I'd say that there are very few scientists who have experience studying building collapses who would dispute that all 3 of the WTC buildings collapsed due to a combination of structural damage by impact (in two cases a plane, and in one a building) and the resultant unchecked fires.
 
7. I'm in the NWO, and that's what the Zionist overlords hath decreed.
 
Virtually 100% of the available evidence points to the 'official story' as the most plausible account of what happened. The amount of evidence in support of every possible conspiracy theory I've heard is approaching 0%. The only argument the truth movement has been able to muster up is that there is some possibility that A (the OS) is not completely accurate. Combine that with the fact that no one can offer irrefutable proof that B (the CT) is impossible. Therefore B > A. Therefore 0% > 100%.
 
Because the "official story" makes far more sense, and has far more evidence and corroborating support, than any one of the myriad of ludicrous ideas put forward by the ironically-named "truth" movement.

Any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom