Official story: why believe it?

[peteweaver]

I believe I have as many qualifications as anybody on this forum.
I yet to find qualifications listed here or at 911myths.com

While the reason I believe journalof911studies.com has science on their side is that I find that they have qualifications and the explain all of the reasons they have for their views. I also find many people who try to discredit them usually have their facts wrong.

They have qualifications, but not in the relavent fields of study to understand construction.

Nuclear physics, and construction are very very different.

I studied civil engineering at college, and find that Steven Jones et al haven't even the most basic understanding of the underlying physics at work.

In short they are frauds.

 

[lisabob2]

Jones paper is about the scientific method which is at issue here.
I seriously doubt you understand Physics more than Jones.
There are hundreds of engineers & Architects who do think Jones is right, engineers & architects who have degrees & experience.
Have you looked at journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org ?
Ae911truth have 234 professionals who do not support the Goverment's story.
Patruiotsfor911truth.com says it has 270 Architects & Engineers, 60 pilots & aviation professionals.
I suppose they are all frauds?
Maybe calling them frauds is just a opinion, unless you have proof?

 

[lisabob2]

No, there are no unanswered issues. There are only false statements by Mr. Szamboti to lead astray the gullible.

So you are not going to answer my questions?

 

[lisabob2]

Neither. It's called pointing out your behaviour.

so it's your opinion.

 

[lisabob2]

"How will these independent reviewers be any different from the independent reviewers that NIST already has?"

We will find out if they do it won't we?

 

[beachnut]

Jones paper is about the scientific method which is at issue here.
I seriously doubt you understand Physics more than Jones.
There are hundreds of engineers & Architects who do think Jones is right, engineers & architects who have degrees & experience.
Have you looked at journalof911studies.com or ae911truth.org ?
Ae911truth have 234 professionals who do not support the Goverment's story.
Patruiotsfor911truth.com says it has 270 Architects & Engineers, 60 pilots & aviation professionals.
I suppose they are all frauds?
Maybe calling them frauds is just a opinion, unless you have proof?

ON 9/11 YES!
They are all full of false information on 9/11; you can not present one coherent fact to support them.

Here is what Clinton says about your 9/11 truth false information woos

"You wanna know what I think?” Clinton said. “You guys who think 9/11 was an inside job are crazy as hell. My wife was the senator from New York when that happened. I was down at Ground Zero. I saw the victims' families. You're nuts."

I got proof your list of people who think 9/11 was an inside job are frauds. List one fact from the lot and someone will show you the fraud! One little fact you have failed to produce!

 

[lisabob2]

I think you need to read what I wrote a little bit more carefully. No one is arguing about a difference between 1 and 40. We're arguing about the different between 0.65 and 1.0.

The reason why this is important is based on column failure. When a column has a slenderness ratio that is very low it won't exihibit a classical buckling failure and the energy required for the column to "break" as it were is much higher. Mr. Szamboti is standing by his effective length factor of 0.65 because if he uses a 1.0 (or higher as it should be in reality) his entire belief structure that the towers can't collapse is invalidated.

I've never claimed that the connections are pinned, rather I've said that the exterior columns were part of a moment FRAME (these are moment, i.e. fixed, connected). AISC clearly defines how to calculate the effective length factor of this in the following chart:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_16329477c57124fc1f.jpg[/qimg]

Notice how the chart says for sidesway unihibited columns (moment frames). It is clear that the lowest effective length factor for these columns is 1.0. Thus it is also clear that Mr. Szamboti belief that the columns in the tower cannot buckle is FALSE.

To further elaborate, Mr. Szamboti claims that the columns are sidesway inhibited (that is, he is saying this NOW after I proved his previous method of calculating k was incorrect). This would mean that the top portion of the tower would be exactly over the top of the bottom portion, in other words, the tower doesn't SWAY in the wind. Do you get the difference?

He won't admit he's wrong because of something that psychologists call cognitive dissonance. He cannot admit he is wrong on the subject of effective length factor because that would be his belief on the towers collapsing, and thus his entire belief on 9/11 and a significant portion of his life is wrong.

He's also a peer reviewer for J911.

What you're doing right now, which is automatically assuming that he is right and everyone else is wrong is what psychologists call confirmation bias. They have the same conclusion that you do, thus regardless of whether or not they are correct, you take them at their word. It's time to start figuring things out for yourself and stop automatically assuming that the anti-establishment is always correct.

No, Szamboti makes a issue of the 40 ratio in the post. He also asks a question of you about 20 ratio that you did not answer at least in the post you linked me to.
I am not assuming he is right only asking about the ratio issue that was brought up.
I think any reasonable person would ask those questions after reading that post.
I did not say you were wrong anywhere.

 

[twinstead]

"How will these independent reviewers be any different from the independent reviewers that NIST already has?"

We will find out if they do it won't we?

And if THAT independent review doesn't come to the conclusion 911 was an inside job?

I submit that you will never support ANY conclusion of ANY investigation that you don't agree with. Your almost religious belief in Jones and the rest of his 'experts' in the face of a huge amount of evidence they don't know what they are talking about, and in the face of the overwhelming majority of real experts who disagree with you, and him (or should I type Him?) makes me almost sure that NO investigation will be truly 'independent' in your mind until they tell you what you want to hear.

I wish this weren't the case, but ideology and science are a BAD combination.

 

[lisabob2]

To further elaborate, Mr. Szamboti claims that the columns are sidesway inhibited (that is, he is saying this NOW after I proved his previous method of calculating k was incorrect). This would mean that the top portion of the tower would be exactly over the top of the bottom portion, in other words, the tower doesn't SWAY in the wind. Do you get the difference?

Your graph indicates the calcualtions he used were wrong not that he was wrong about the "sidesway inhibited" He was saying .65 and you 1. So if he was off on his calculations that doesn't mean he was off on his assertion. When there are many factors involved I think it is a little more complex than that. What if your using the wrong chart? What if the difference between .65 and 1 makes doesn't matter in the least?
I believe the towers were designed to sway a little. That was one of the benefits of the "tube in a tube design" So if Szamboti says towers did not sway I would say he was wrong.

 

[lisabob2]

If a open independent review of the nist report confirms that it's theories are correct I will have no problem believing it.
It isn't about anything but the facts.
Ideology & Science is a bad combination thats why I don't believe the goverments story.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Obviously I was not saying Jones was lying.
Obviously I am not admitting anything
Obviously I was explaining one way peer review is used by scientist, I was assuming you knew this.
If you have read Jone's paper: Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
You would know about his hypothesis.

So then don't you agree that when a scientist cannot find any legitimate publishers to peer agree with their findings and then make up their own journal where they can review their own work and ignore the rest of the scientific community, it's being dishonest?

It's like a doctor that comes up with a medical procedure that the rest of the community deems wrong, so he goes and starts his own journal, reviews it himself, and then you accuse all the legit doctors of being wrong because this one has something published in his own journal.

It's ironic that you keep bringing up these claims of scientific method, but don't hold yourself OR Jones to these standards.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If a open independent review of the nist report confirms that it's theories are correct I will have no problem believing it.
It isn't about anything but the facts.
Ideology & Science is a bad combination thats why I don't believe the goverments story.

Now you're just lying. And you have no problem with this lie, because you know that the NIST report IS an independent review and therefore there will never be an independent review of an independent review, or any point in doing so. And their work is open for everyone to see and everyone to criticize. Yet you, nor your fake scientists can find a legit problem or errors.

Ideology is ALL you and your fake scientists have. And all you do is pretend the real science isn't real science. And none of you are able to back up your empty claims. All you are doing is making rhetoric. And when you are pressed to give real answers, you ignore those posts.

You're just as bad as the frauds you claim are real scientists.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"How will these independent reviewers be any different from the independent reviewers that NIST already has?"

We will find out if they do it won't we?

So what are you waiting for? Go do this independent review (of an independent review). What are you waiting for? A government agency (which you claim to be wrong with no merit)? What's the hold up. Hurry up with your review and get back to us. We look forward to seeing your independent review.

 

[Alt+F4]

If a open independent review of the nist report...

So who's going to do this "open independent review"? Names please. Thanks in advance.

 

[The Almond]

"How will these independent reviewers be any different from the independent reviewers that NIST already has?"

We will find out if they do it won't we?

Your evasion and failure to address all of the points presented to you are duly noted.

 

[Belz...]

so it's your opinion.

No, it's called a 'fact'.

 

[twinstead]

I'm hoping that lisabob2 may be one of the very few truthers who demand an 'independent investigation' who actually specify who would conduct it and how it would be done.

 

[MIKILLINI]

any scientific hypothesis needs more investigations, experiments, or facts to validate it.
As there are opposite views on the evidence from 9-11 of course there will be different hypothesis. Nobody has proven anything yet. Thats part of the scientific process.

The bolded part above is true, but why would one go with the opposite side when that side hasn't given any significant revealing of their evidence?

Jones makes the claim of iron microspheres as telltale evidence of a catalyst used in bringing the towers down. A significant number of truthers hold fast and hard to this claim, but your expert Jones has yet to fully reveal his "evidence".

You say nobody has proven anything yet?

There is one here who does his own experiments, one who takes great interest in what he does and, most importantly, pays close attention to detail while thinking outside the box. Crazy Chainsaw is the name he uses here, and recently he has made a discovery you can show your peers and have them check it out for themselves.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102912

 

[nicepants]

I'm hoping that lisabob2 may be one of the very few truthers who demand an 'independent investigation' who actually specify who would conduct it and how it would be done.

My money says she won't...because if she says "this investigation would satisfy me" and spells it out, there are 2 possibilities:

1) The terms of the investigation, and those responsible, are so biased that "inside job" is the only possible conclusion.

2) The terms are reasonable, and the proposed investigators are legitimate. The investigation concludes that it was not an inside job, lisabob2 claims that the investigation was hampered, interfered with, [insert some other claim here as to why the results cannot be accepted]

Tell us, Lisa...what specific requirements do you have for an investigation whose conclusions you would accept?

 

[lisabob2]

ON 9/11 YES!
They are all full of false information on 9/11; you can not present one coherent fact to support them.

Here is what Clinton says about your 9/11 truth false information woos
I got proof your list of people who think 9/11 was an inside job are frauds. List one fact from the lot and someone will show you the fraud! One little fact you have failed to produce!

Does anybody with any sense believe any politician?
Clinton might have been a better President than Bush, but he is still a corporate whore like Bush, he just didn't rape the middle class as bad.