Official story: why believe it?

Because no conspiracy theory to date has ever passed the common sense test, and has instead been shown to be utterly ludicrous, while the official story has, as others here have stated numerous times, evidence and scientific investigations to back it up.
 
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...
It is consistent with what we witnessed on TV that day. It is consistent with subsequent investigations from multiple, credible sources. It is consistent with eyewitness's testimony. It is consistent with the evidence found at the scenes.

There are many more qualified scientists that do not believe in a conspiracy than do. Those that do, have not brought forth a believable argument, or evidence that supports their claims AND have not even presented a BIG PICTURE hypotheses on how it was carried out.

If one is to complain about holes in the "official story" , one should be prepared to fill in the massive chasms in the conspiracy theory. So far, no one has come close.
 
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...

Firstly there is no "Official Story" there are a collection of investigations, reports, and papers that have been combined into several large documents so as to try and put everything together, but even the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report are not the conclusive story. There are a number of papers and the like that have gathered up witness statements as well, there is the NTSB and FBI investigations (The FBI investigation was the largest criminal investigation in US history) there are also numerous peer-reviewed and published papers that have made it into the real deal scholarly printed journals on Structural Engineering (not some want-a-be self proclaimed Internet Journal run by people with zero knowledge of structural engineering just to push their own barrow.) Add to that the number of books by investigative journalists such as the Pulitzer Prize winners Steve Coll and Lawrence Wright, as well as Terry McDermott and others, that have gone deeply into what happened and who the attackers were, all without uncovering a sniff of a conspiracy inside the US (and considering how critical Steve Coll is of the US Government and the CIA, if he'd discovered anything untoward he'd have leapt on it) and you have a consistent, logical, and relatively simple narrative of the events leading up to and taking place on 9/11 (and afterwards.) This includes money trails, travel undertaken by the hijackers, the prominent individuals involved outside of the US all quitting jobs and heading to Afghanistan just days before the attacks, testimony of their friends and in some cases family, messages sent to their families and their videotaped messages to the world in which they tell why they are about to do what they do.

In the end every single bit of provably factual evidence that has ever been put on the table has supported the narrative that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took over four planes, crashed three into buildings and one into the ground to prevent it being retaken by the passengers, that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the damage caused by the impact of a heavy fuel laden 767 at extremely high speeds and from the warping of the steel structure during the subsequent fires. That WTC 7 collapsed due to the structural damage dealt to it during the collapse of WTC 1 by parts of WTC 1 smashing into the southern face, as well as fires that burned unchecked throughout the building for nearly 7 hours doing further damage to the structure until it overloaded one or two critical columns which were already supporting close to maximum loading. According to those that really have the knowledge (unlike those philosophers and Theologises, Talkback show hosts, and film school rejects who write conspiracy books and make movies to make money) there is no mystery to why the towers fell and no need for anything more than what we saw, planes and fires. Add to that zero evidence of explosives, cut beams, or anything else consistent with controlled demolition, and the Conspiracy Theories are just that, a baseless and factless fantasy that falls apart when closely examined by anyone that is willing to look at the evidence and accept it with an open mind.

So if that isn't a good reason to believe that it was indeed done by Al Qaeda without any help or stand down by the US Government, then honestly I don't know what is. It's really a simple choice of accepting reality based on the facts and on science, or wanting desperately to believe in a fantasy that is built around nothing but repeatedly ignoring answers to questions, speculation, cherry-picked quotations, outright lies, half-truths, and a total lack of understanding about the way the universe works. Me? I'm going to go with science.

Oh and eta, also that the "Truthers" have yet to actually produce one consistent and factual account of what they think led up to and occurred on 9/11. They can't even agree with each other on if the Towers were destroyed by explosives, therm*te, nukes, or space lasers, whether there were or weren't hijackers, or even planes. After 6 years they still claim that they are just asking questions and want a new investigation, well then why don't they get off their collective butts, learn some real science and do one? At least if they could come up with a half decent Narrative themselves they might be half plausible, currently they are just a running joke, and a lame one at that.
 
Last edited:
I would agree that from what I know or believe TOS fits the events of 9/11 rather well. I haven't seen credible countervailing evidence.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Firstly there is no "Official Story" there are a collection of investigations, reports, and papers that have been combined into several large documents so as to try and put everything together,....
Click to expand...

Wow, nicely done Wolf. Great post.
 
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...
But the vast majority of scientists, most importantly including just about every competent structural engineer on the planet, do adhere to the consensus story of what happened. Keep in mind that it is a consensus. These engineers didn't just read some government reports, uncritically swallow them, and go on with their day. They really have studied the evidence at hand, and their work has shown time and time again that the towers collapsed as a result of the fires inside them, that the Pentagon was really actually hit by an airplane, and generally that the claims of the conspiracy theorists don't hold up.

I used to believe in the conspiracy theories myself. Why? Well, because I heard about them on the Net, I became intrigued, and I just started reading. But I would only read stuff that the conspiracy theorists had written. When you do that, and you don't bother to take the counter-arguments seriously or even look to see what they are, it's easy to delude yourself into believing whatever you'd like to think happened on that day. Even scientists aren't immune from fooling themselves.

But there is an objective reality of the situation here. Somebody has to be right. Either it's the conspiracy theorists who tend to be young laymen on the Internet, or the vast majority of the structural engineers of the world. One side has to be hitting on some real engineering insights with regard to how those towers fell, and one side has to be in denial picking through the facts desperately searching for things which support a line of events which did not happen. And when I opened up and decided to rigorously examine both sides of the debate, it was clear which side that was. Unfortunately for me, it was the side I had been supporting. But I decided being right was more important to me than pride, and I had to admit I was wrong.

I know it sounds sexy and exciting to be the rogue conspiracy theorist peering into secret government affairs, uncovering the vast webs of manipulation that have everybody else duped, and vowing to join the revolution to overthrow the tyrants. But you have to get beyond those emotional responses and dig down to the truth about what happened. And the truth is, there's just no evidence whatsoever for thinking the government was behind 9/11. None. Really, if you throw out any of the conspiracy theorists' claims, with a little examination it turns out to be a bunch of hogwash. I really sincerely didn't want that to be the case, but when it kept happening over and over again every time I tried to hold up the conspiracy theory, I had to jump ship.

If you want some murderous tyrants to point the finger at, it'll have to be the extremist jihadist Muslims. I know, it's a less exciting target than Bush and Cheney, and it's one you probably know a lot less about, and it's a hell of a lot more daunting to deal with if you want to bring justice and peace to the world, but hey, c'est la vie. Not that Bush and Cheney aren't screwing things up in their own way, but they're not responsible for 9/11.
 
Last edited:
As others have said, it's not a "story", it's what actually happened that day. There's the reality of what happened and then there's the fanstasy world of the troofers.

Reality vs. Fantasy. Pick a side.

Steve S.
 
Let's use the same questioning towards Lisa's beliefs.

Why believe the CT stories? 99.999% of all scientists disagree with them. Keep in mind we're talking about *real* scientists.
 
Why believe the CT stories? Because they are on youtube. And youtube NEVER lies.
 
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...

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:)
 
I refuse to believe it. The other versions further separate me from normal society and give me a whole new collection of like-minded fantasists who will nurture and applaud my delusions.
 
Last edited:
#10. - 99.999 percent of all scientist do... #1. facts and evidence

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...
The number 10 reason - 99.999 percent of all scientist do. You should ask some real scientist instead of being solicited to have dumb ideas on 9/11. They told you, you did not find out, you forgot to use your mind and use facts and evidence to decide, Jones lied, you believed his ideas on 9/11.

The real reason; you can use facts and evidence to support how the WTC complex was destroyed by impact, fire, and failure. The 9/11 truth movement has only talk. Check it out, no facts just made up misinformation from people with some real nut case ideas, you have 9/11 truth.

And the number one reason !!! Facts and evidence!
 
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...

As a qualified scientist myself, I have looked at the evidence 9/11 fantasists and deniers have provided to substantiate their claims. Of the numerous claims and proofs I've investigated, I have found that they fall into three distinct categories:

1) Concepts that are generally correct, except that they contain mathematical errors, use the wrong equations, ignore alternative and mitigating sources of energy/matter or are simply poorly applied. The majority of the work by Stephen Jones and the STJ911 group can fit nicely into this category. I don't ascribe malicious intentions to their errors, only ignorance.

2) Concepts that are wrong. I've been told a number of whoppers on this forum such as:
  • Concrete does not expand when heated
  • Loads do not transfer across hat trusses
  • A stochastic computer model is not a valid solution
  • Three inch diameter rebar exists
Every day I come onto this forum and find such errors. Mostly these are made by people who have no technically relevant knowledge in structural mechanics, but their egos allow them to believe their opinions on the matter change reality.

3) Concepts that aren't even wrong. This is a bit difficult, but let me explain. If I told you that I had 5 fish, and then ate 3, you might say that I have 3 fish left. That answer would be wrong. But if you had said, "You have 6 space pies in your bungalow," that answer would be too crazy to be wrong. Examples of this type of reasoning include:
  • Space Beams
  • Directed energy weapons
  • Massive holograms
That all being said, I will believe any 9/11 conspiracy theory that can provide evidence without making me laugh.
 
you give the "scholars" too much credit. I would bet money that some of them are so hell bent on proving their CTs, that the facts are obstacles, rather than aids.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
you give the "scholars" too much credit. I would bet money that some of them are so hell bent on proving their CTs, that the facts are obstacles, rather than aids.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

But TAM, Truthers do not abide by peer-review, because Arab Muslims invented the concept. Because Arabs are too stupid to hijack planes, peer-review has no bearing on truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom