Official story: why believe it?

[DavidJames]

Yes Griscom is very impressive and has shown thru science how election was stolen.
He is one of the worlds most sourced scientist which means other scientist uses Griscom work. He knows good science from bad. Read "hand waving the physics of 911" by Griscom. He explains things very well.

Please provide a link to one paper he has written for review by independent scientists. That's how real scientists work.

 

[The Big Dog]

"People like Steven Jones & David Griscom have spent most of their lives using the proper scientific methods & have much experience doing excellent scientific work. Their "assumptions" could be wrong but they have scientific reasons for them. And with well over 200 peer reviewed papers between them I know they knwo their stuff."

That is a fallacy. 200 peer reviewed papers? How many on the structural engineering? I work with numerous structural engineers. Real practicing engineers. They think Jones in literally crazy (yes they used those words) and think AE911 is an embarrassment.

As for DR. Jones, make sure you read "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America." There will be a test later.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

you are stating opinions, not fact. Many highly qualified scientist do not find official story credible. David Griscom who has very impressive credentials and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist is one of them.

And by many you mean 2. Yet you easily ignore the 99.99999% of the scientific community who has actually done *real* research and have either proven these two con artists wrong, or completely disagre with their findings.

So tell us why the rest of the scientific community is wrong and only these two guys are right (ignoring the fact that their findings have been absolutely proven incorrect).

 

[apathoid]

He is one of the worlds most sourced scientist which means other scientist uses Griscom work. He knows good science from bad.

Then he should have absolutely no trouble getting a peer reviewed paper published on his 9/11 theories.....does it make you wonder why he hasn't?

 

[DGM]

Lisabob2:
If Jones uses proper scientific methods why did he use the cut column with out confirming it's authenticity? Also he uses a picture of fire fighters peering into a light and says it's a furnace. He says he didn't know but still used it. He claims the "meteor" was once molten but there's paper sticking out of it. Doesn't sound like good science to me, how about you?

 

[Drudgewire]

People like Steven Jones & David Griscom have spent most of their lives using the proper scientific methods & have much experience doing excellent scientific work.

Too bad they abandoned it on September 12, 2001 and never looked back.

 

[lisabob2]

"Maybe Lisabob can provide us with some peer-reviewed, scientifc evidence proving that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and WTC7"
Bazant first theory was done 2 days after 9-11. It was peer reviewed. and accepted. Later the nist investigation disproved it.
I have said all along I have a problem with investigations so far because they were not done scientifically and they all have big issues. The first big issue is why did it take over a year to begin investigation and why was evidence destroyed?
For peer reviewed work see journalof911studies.com

"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?"

What fantasies are you talking about specifically??

 

[CptColumbo]

you are stating opinions, not fact. Many highly qualified scientist do not find official story credible. David Griscom who has very impressive credentials and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist is one of them.

I am writing that the majority of scientists in the relevant fields agree with the generally accepted story and back up their opinions with facts that can be verified by anyone with an mind open enough to do so.

The scientist whom I've seen disagree with the findings of those who have either been part of the criminal investigation or have come to their finding independantly, either are speaking out side of their field and/or won't publish their reasons for disagreeing (which in many cases are more in politics than science).

 

[FactCheck]

you are stating opinions, not fact. Many highly qualified scientist do not find official story credible. David Griscom who has very impressive credentials and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist is one of them.

Ironically, the evidence points to you and your so called "highly qualified scientist" who are giving opinion. The FACT is not one of the few scientists (Who are also out of their fields of expertise and also only make up the tinniest of the scientific population. I think more scientist think the earth is flat.) have produced a single peer reviewed paper saying the towers could not have collapsed with the evidence presented. Not ONE. In FACT, not ONE of the 140,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers has even suggested the collapse was impossible; never mind peer review... Yet time and time again members have written peer reviewed papers showing just how easily the towers could have collapse by fire given the evidence we have.

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

The evidence ironically points to you repeating opinion while we have facts to back up our conclusions.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes Griscom is very impressive and has shown thru science how election was stolen.
He is one of the worlds most sourced scientist which means other scientist uses Griscom work. He knows good science from bad. Read "hand waving the physics of 911" by Griscom. He explains things very well.

Your statement is too grand. To say he is one of the most sourced scientists, than you are saying he is up there with the greats like Hawking, Sagan, Einstein. You should either prove this, or admit it was an "off handed" remark, rather than a statement of fact, which is the way it appears in your comments.

As for his "handwaving" article, where is his science?
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/
Please show me his science, his calculations, his SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS within this paper. I mean is a "legend" in his field, is he not. Seems he should be able to put Bazant et al to shame with such talent...where is his paper? He nearly begs others to produce papers and submit them to real journals, where is his paper on the collapses?????

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

"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"

What scientific evidence supports this? computer simulations that were never intended for this use, & do not have corroborating physical evidence? Not scientific in my book
John Skilling the chief engineer during construction of the twin towers said they could survive a impact from a fully loaded 707 at 600mph.
3 buildings all with asymetrical damaged fell symetrically all on the same day. The investigations didn't start for over a year. Investigation did not look at all available evidence. Many qualified scientist with nothing to gain have pointed out issues with official story. I find the same 4 or 5 engineers supporting official story while hundreds of scientist have gone public questionin it.
When a PhD in physics says collapse broke laws of physics, unless something else weakened steel columns I think it is foolish to disregard what he has to say without good reason

Read thru journalof911studies.com with a open & critical mind compare what 911myths says Jones says to what he actually does say

 

[The Big Dog]

"Read thru journalof911studies.com with a open & critical mind compare what 911myths says Jones says to what he actually does say."

I have, Jones is an idiot.

And you are very close to being what we call a spammer around these parts.

What is your take on Jones claim that "Thus, the marked hand symbol is connected to Deity-in particular with Itzamna, who died, went to the world of spirits and then was resurrected. All of this is reminiscent of Jesus Christ, supporting the claim of the Book of Mormon that New World inhabitants knew of Jesus long before Columbus arrived"?

 

[WildCat]

Many qualified scientist with nothing to gain have pointed out issues with official story.

Really?

 

[T.A.M.]

"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"

What scientific evidence supports this? computer simulations that were never intended for this use, & do not have corroborating physical evidence? Not scientific in my book

The above is proof of (1)your ignorance, (2)that you did not read the NIST Report, of even the Executive Summaries.

John Skilling the chief engineer during construction of the twin towers said they could survive a impact from a fully loaded 707 at 600mph.
3 buildings all with asymetrical damaged fell symetrically all on the same day.

Source?

How should they have fallen?

The investigations didn't start for over a year. Investigation did not look at all available evidence. Many qualified scientist with nothing to gain have pointed out issues with official story. I find the same 4 or 5 engineers supporting official story while hundreds of scientist have gone public questionin it.
When a PhD in physics says collapse broke laws of physics, unless something else weakened steel columns I think it is foolish to disregard what he has to say without good reason

Read thru journalof911studies.com with a open & critical mind compare what 911myths says Jones says to what he actually does say

1. Please point to any REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that NIST or FEMA did not look at?
2. Scientists most of whom have an agenda, or are angered with the govt or their own country and how it acts in the world.
3. Scientists, who cannot amongst them, provide more than a handful of scientific papers on the matter, none of which have been peer reviewed (not in the real world sense).
4. Many more PhD's in Physics, as well as Engineering, have said differently to your guy with a PhD in Optical Physics and Silica Compounds.
5. I wouldn't waste the energy to click my mouse on the link for JONES.

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

Everything above.

And the truth movement has yet to come up with a single, cohesive, alternative theory. Please, Lisa. I beg of you. Give us an altenative timeline of events. Please include names, organizations, methods, etc. Who did what, when, where and how?

You won't because you can't. Each of your movement's theories is loaded with speculation, conjecture, half-truths, and out-right lies with members falling over each other every day trying to out-stupid the latest stupid idea.

Prove me wrong and I will be more than happy to concede.

The truth movement at least about the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings is about having a real scientific investigation.
It is illogical to make stuff up to try to give you answers that have no bearing on the truth.
The evidence so far does not support official theory. The fire did not burn hot enough or long enough to support story. The official theory also does not take into account the safety factor that was designed into the buildings.

 

[lisabob2]

Um..where did Lisa go? Another drive-by truther posting huh?
Sorry I don't have much time 3 kids at christmas keeps me busy

 

[lisabob2]

Because I am stricken by Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is obnoxious, but he seems to have predicted 9-11.
I like checking out what the scientist say.

 

[T.A.M.]

The evidence so far does not support official theory. The fire did not burn hot enough or long enough to support story. The official theory also does not take into account the safety factor that was designed into the buildings.

Wonderful, fictional, baseless, evidenceless, unfounded opinion...

Got any more?

TAM

 

[RickGonja]

Interesting discussion

I find the whole 911 truth movement interesting and have read a decent portion of the NIST report, but I am in no way qualified to refute what lisabob2 claims on my own. I can read the peer reviewed papers as an interested engineering student. I also go to the truther because I have a friend who is a truther. I find the truther sites usually lack the basic scientific credibility of peer review. I continue to go to websites from both sides as an interested student and as a future engineer the so called “official story” seems to be the most logical and likely scenario.

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum RickGonja...here a 16 months, and 4 posts...lol, lurk much??

TAM