Official story: why believe it?

[FactCheck]

"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

Not in your book? Is it peer reviewed? No need to tell me, I know the answer.

Some of your statements are laughable. Please educate youself before posting.

1) Do you even know what field would be most qualified?

2) Can you name ONE peer reviewed paper written in a respected scientific journal saying the towers could not have collapsed by impact damage and fire?

3) Jones is a joke in his own university. The structural engineers in his own university think he doesn't know the minimum of structural engineering.

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

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

You'd better start backing up your claims with some facts as I have.

 

[lisabob2]

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

you can use that logic both ways:

investigation started over a year later,
Bush said to ignore "conspiracy theories" from the day after 9-11,
Investigations were not open & independent, why? Pearl Harbor investigation was.
Believers of official theory try to discredit anybody who questions it.
Bush administration was warned by Richard Clarke, but they lied about being forwarned.
Bush lied about seeing first plane hit tower.
If Alquadea did it why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? They were mostly Saudis
How can 47 massive core columns & 240 exterior columns give same resistance as air?(during collapses) You would think they would give more.
How can anybody trust any goverment agency these days?

 

[RickGonja]

Classes

TAM I am usually up my neck in class work so I only get to do a quick review of the forum. I am trying to become more active but I have to catch up on the latest from the truth movement.

 

[T.A.M.]

SO many falsehoods, in one section...at least you gave each piece of BS it's own line.

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

Not in your book? Is it peer reviewed? No need to tell me, I know the answer.

Some of your statements are laughable. Please educate youself before posting.

1) Do you even know what field would be most qualified?

2) Can you name ONE peer reviewed paper written in a respected scientific journal saying the towers could not have collapsed by impact damage and fire?

3) Jones is a joke in his own university. The structural engineers in his own university think he doesn't know the minimum of structural engineering.



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

You'd better start backing up your claims with some facts as I have.

because some engineers think Jones doesn't know engineering does not take away his expertise in physics. Steven Jones has PhD in Physics, his papers are about physics.
Others like Gordon Ross have done papers on the engineering standpoint.

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM I am usually up my neck in class work so I only get to do a quick review of the forum. I am trying to become more active but I have to catch up on the latest from the truth movement.

Thats cool. Comment was jocular in intent, and made purely based on your join date, and post number. Your reasons are your own, but thanks for sharing, and once again welcome to the forum.

TAM

 

[DGM]

How can 47 massive core columns & 240 exterior columns give same resistance as air?(during collapses) You would think they would give more.
How can anybody trust any goverment agency these days?

They didn't Lisabob2! Show me that they did or admit that it's a lie.

 

[T.A.M.]

because some engineers think Jones doesn't know engineering does not take away his expertise in physics. Steven Jones has PhD in Physics, his papers are about physics.
Others like Gordon Ross have done papers on the engineering standpoint.

please enlighten me on the Physics aspects of Jones work on Thermite use in the WTCs, iron microspheres, and his new pet theory, red chips. I have read his paper on thermite, and there is very little "physics" in it (The last 3rd of his paper has some basic physics in it).

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

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.

Hey I was wondering what you thought of Nist using computer simulations ?
I know the physical evidence does not corroborate with the temps they used in the simultions.
James Quintiere says
:"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. "
He also says:
"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

I was also wondering how you compare 911myths.com to journalof911studies.com or
ae911truth.org, I mean which sites seem more scientific to you.?
Also can you list some sites you reccomend? I am always trying to learn.
have a nice day
Bob

 

[T.A.M.]

It is interesting to watch a truther try to lure an innocent right in front of us.

Good luck lisabob2.

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

Isn't about time lisabob was banned as a spammer? She/he keeps posting the same crap over and over again, and for the most part ignores anything anyone else says to the contrary.

 

[lisabob2]

They didn't Lisabob2! Show me that they did or admit that it's a lie.

the speed of collapse was too fast. The steel columns gave about same resistance as air. Prof. Kuttler did some calculations. The fastest collapse time should have been 25 seconds.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

 

[stateofgrace]

you can use that logic both ways:

investigation started over a year later,

And ?

Bush said to ignore "conspiracy theories" from the day after 9-11,

And ?

Investigations were not open & independent, why? Pearl Harbor investigation was.

Really? How so?

Believers of official theory try to discredit anybody who questions it.

This is because believers of CTs speak BS.

Bush administration was warned by Richard Clarke, but they lied about being forwarned.

Did they? yet this secret is known, how is that ?

Bush lied about seeing first plane hit tower.

Bush is an idiot who made an idiotic statement.

If Alquadea did it why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? They were mostly Saudis

Afghanistan ?

How can 47 massive core columns & 240 exterior columns give same resistance as air?(during collapses) You would think they would give more.

You forgot the floors, remember the floors that braced them together.

How can anybody trust any goverment agency these days?

To not murder 3000 people in broad day light and hope to fool the entire planet, I guess I would trust them that far.

 

[T.A.M.]

the speed of collapse was too fast. The steel columns gave about same resistance as air. Prof. Kuttler did some calculations. The fastest collapse time should have been 25 seconds.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

Well many in your movement would disagree, as you can't say "clunkity clunk" 110 times in 25 seconds either.

TAM

 

[lisabob2]

SO many falsehoods, in one section...at least you gave each piece of BS it's own line.

TAM

I love the fact that a "critical thinker" such as yourself can dismiss my statements as lies but not prove that one is. I would think that it would be easy for you to expose my "lies." If you would care to post a "lie" from me I will respond with my reasons or facts to back up what I have posted

 

[lisabob2]

Isn't about time lisabob was banned as a spammer? She/he keeps posting the same crap over and over again, and for the most part ignores anything anyone else says to the contrary.

thats right just get rid of those who disagree with you.
You do not have to answer my posts, or even read them. If you feel threatened I am sorry.
But you can ignore me.

 

[Good Lt]

I love the fact that a "critical thinker" such as yourself can dismiss my statements as lies but not prove that one is.

I'm sorry, but have you proved that 9-11 was an inside job yet?

 

[lisabob2]

And ?
And ?
Really? How so?
This is because believers of CTs speak BS.
Did they? yet this secret is known, how is that ?
Bush is an idiot who made an idiotic statement.
Afghanistan ?
You forgot the floors, remember the floors that braced them together.
To not murder 3000 people in broad day light and hope to fool the entire planet, I guess I would trust them that far.

Investigations were not open & independent, why? Pearl Harbor investigation was.
Really? How so?
Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

 

[lisabob2]

And ?
And ?
Really? How so?
This is because believers of CTs speak BS.
Did they? yet this secret is known, how is that ?
Bush is an idiot who made an idiotic statement.
Afghanistan ?
You forgot the floors, remember the floors that braced them together.
To not murder 3000 people in broad day light and hope to fool the entire planet, I guess I would trust them that far.

Bush administration was warned by Richard Clarke, but they lied about being forwarned.
Did they? yet this secret is known, how is that ?

First it is not a secret.
Second it was in the media
Third you can read Richard Clarke's book

 

[stateofgrace]

Investigations were not open & independent, why? Pearl Harbor investigation was.
Really? How so?
Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

Do you agree with Dr Quintiere?