Official story: why believe 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...

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.
 
Wolf, excellent response.

And since it has been 6 years if any of the truthers were really interested in finding out what happened to the buildings they could have obtained degrees in civil, mechanical, or structural engineering and could now be proving their points with facts.

Of course that assumes any of them could make it through an engineering program.
 
GT/CS said:
Of course that assumes any of them could make it through an engineering program.
Click to expand...

And to assume that, one would have to assume any of them could even make it to a library.

..... Or an admissions office.

..................... Or out of mommy's basement.
 
Dean of Admissions: I'm afraid we are unable to admit you since you failed all of the qualifying exams, and your High School grades are unacceptable.

"Twoofer" Student: What are you afraid of?
 
Plus, breast-feeding in public is still sort of frowned upon in some places

lisabob2 said:
I would like to know, why should anybody believe official story of collapses of the 3 WTC buildings on 9-11?
Click to expand...


Lisabob2,

It all has to do with NISTIAN Attachment Theory.

Please see the schematic below:


* * *
 

Attachments

  • 41YA7HP3ETL.jpg
    41YA7HP3ETL.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
Lisabob2,

It all has to do with NISTIAN Attachment Theory.

Please see the schematic below:


* * *
Click to expand...
And of course there is this schematic of CT reading comprehension when reading the NIST report:
 

Attachments

  • i-can-read-with-my-eyes-shut.jpg
    i-can-read-with-my-eyes-shut.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 265
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...

The first best reason NOT to believe the claims of the so-called "truth" movement is because of the non-stop barrage of lies that vomit forth from their cake-holes.

Lies like:

WTC7 wasn't hit by anything.

WTC7 wasn't on fire.

No steel structure has ever collapsed from fire.

Larry Silverstein admitted blowing up the building.

5/6/7 of the hijackers are still alive.

PNAC called for a major attack on the US.

No 757 wreckage was recovered from the Pentagon.

No airliner wreckage was recovered from Shanksville.

The firefighters were in on it.

We never said the firefighters were in on it.

The Twin Towers came down at free-fall speed.

And on and on and on... and when they're are done lying, and they have their lies pointed out to them, they just head back to the top of the list and repeat the same lies all over again.

How could any reasonable person take seriously the claims of those who lie as much as this?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The first best reason NOT to believe the claims of the so-called "truth" movement is because of the non-stop barrage of lies that vomit forth from their cake-holes.

Lies like:

WTC7 wasn't hit by anything.

WTC7 wasn't on fire.

No steel structure has ever collapsed from fire.

Larry Silverstein admitted blowing up the building.

5/6/7 of the hijackers are still alive.

PNAC called for a major attack on the US.

No 757 wreckage was recovered from the Pentagon.

No airliner wreckage was recovered from Shanksville.

The firefighters were in on it.

We never said the firefighters were in on it.

The Twin Towers came down at free-fall speed.

And on and on and on... and when they're are done lying, and they have their lies pointed out to them, they just head back to the top of the list and repeat the same lies all over again.

How could any reasonable person take seriously the claims of those who lie as much as this?
Click to expand...


Indeed. When one lies repeatedly and continuously (and long after the time for claiming innocent ignorance has passed), one's credibility is irretrievably lost.
 
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...

Name ONE who happens to have expertise in structural fire engineering.

Being a scientist is not enough, possessing the RIGHT type of scientific credentials is what counts.

Zdenek Bazant PhD a Civil Engineer, is qualified in the relevant fields.

Steven Jones PhD (a nuclear physicist) is NOT qualified in the relevant fields.

All the members of the steel in fire forum, possess the relevant qualifications:
http://www.steelinfire.org.uk/contact_Frame-3.html

They do NOT support the controlled demolitions theories (and as a qualified civil engineer myself, I can honestly say that the steel in fire forum, members are absolutely right to disagree with the ridiculous conspiracy theories).

And btw, there is no 'official story' there is however an established consensus amongst experts & journalists as to what happened.
 
Max Photon said:
Lisabob2,

It all has to do with NISTIAN Attachment Theory.

Please see the schematic below:


* * *
Click to expand...

My own take has nothing to do with the NIST report.

I have not been convinced to the contrary due to a lack of evidence on which I am able to make a judgement. If Lisabob2 could provide a list of Human Resource theorists that can provide an insight into the motivation, the skills gaps, numbers of agents involved as well as the reward and/or the command structure of the agents involved in the proposed CT's and evidence of the actual existence of said structures, then I would be willing to make a judgement.

Until then the "Official" Story, as some choose to call it, carries the most weight as it makes sense to me.
 
achtung circus said:
Names, please.

Thanks.:)
Click to expand...
Dr. David L Griscom,Prof. Michael Keefer,Dr. Kenneth Kuttler,Dr. Steven Jones ,Prof. Graeme MacQueen,Gordon Ross,Tony Szamboti, ME ,Dr. Frank Legge,Prof. David Ray Griffin
just check out ae911truth.org for more
 
lisabob2 said:
the explanation of Steven Jones & Richard Gage makes more sense to me. why not give some facts or evidence we could discuss?
Click to expand...

This is your claim. The 'official story' is out there for ALL to see, and is accepted by the vast majority of experts from around the world. Do you have an alternate theory that fits the facts and evidence better than the 'official story'?

Let's have it. This isn't some conspiracy forum. Many people here are very well versed in the relevant sciences of 911, and have studied both sides of the story extensively.

Do Jones and Gage's works REALLY stand up to expert scrutiny? Are you being told what to think by them, or have you REALLY weighed all the available evidence and made an UNBIASED choice to believe in an inside job?
 
lisabob2 said:
the explanation of Steven Jones & Richard Gage makes more sense to me. why not give some facts or evidence we could discuss?
Click to expand...

Why don't you give us that alternative timeline then. According to YOUR story, who did what, when, where, and how?
 
lisabob2 said:
Dr. David L Griscom,Prof. Michael Keefer,Dr. Kenneth Kuttler,Dr. Steven Jones ,Prof. Graeme MacQueen,Gordon Ross,Tony Szamboti, ME ,Dr. Frank Legge,Prof. David Ray Griffin
just check out ae911truth.org for more
Click to expand...

Any of those people have any relevant expertise? Any structural engineers there? A couple would do.

But, do you really want the list of expert contributors to the NIST named again as a response to this? When it comes to lists of experts, size does indeed matter, I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom