Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

Jones is your God. It has been shown that his evidence is suspect.

For starters, what I would like you to address is what evidence you have that the 'thermite cuts' he describes aren't the cuts made by welders after the collapse.

Because THAT, my ideologue friend, is the very beginning of understanding what Jones is all about. This little deception sets the stage for every single piece of 'evidence' he presents.

So. This is the first 'something specific'.

Jones did not claim the columns in the pictures were damaged by cd, he has said that test could prove what did damage the columns in the pictures. He thought that they could be from thermite or thermate, but he did not make any such claims.
please provide a direct quote from Jones to prove your point because I have reread his article and I find no support for your statement anywhere.
So specifically your sources are wrong about the statements Jones makes.
Have you read any of Jones articles at all? How about David Griscom?
Maybe if you read the actual articles you will see what Jones has really claimed?

 

[DGM]

Jones did not claim the columns in the pictures were damaged by cd, he has said that test could prove what did damage the columns in the pictures. He thought that they could be from thermite or thermate, but he did not make any such claims.
please provide a direct quote from Jones to prove your point because I have reread his article and I find no support for your statement anywhere.
So specifically your sources are wrong about the statements Jones makes.
Have you read any of Jones articles at all? How about David Griscom?
Maybe if you read the actual articles you will see what Jones has really claimed?

So he puts out hear say and expects others to disprove his "science". Nice role model you got there.

 

[FactCheck]

Actually, FactCheck, 3 buildings in NYC were demolished by heat weakening.
Seems some Islamic fundies flew fuel-laden jet aircraft into them at very high speed (above the maximum "we can still reuse the airplane" speed), and the damage killed the fire suppression system, as well as the thermal blankets around the steel. It also damaged them is such a way the fire Department couldn't reach the fires.
As a result, 2 of them burned uncontrolled for near an hour, and the crash set off fires in the 3rd one.
The heat weakened the structure of the building to the point it could not support the structure above the damage and fires, and gravity reclaimed the potential energy stored in the buildings.
During this process, the 3rd building was also structurally damaged, and the fires raged out ofd control for severral hours, eventually bringing that building down also.
Later a building somewhere overseas also caught fire, and the heat weakened its steel and collapsed the steel parts of the building.

I agree 100% but that WAS investigated. It was investigated in a depth never before seen in building collapse forensics. So for him to say:

Yet I know of no properly credentialed professional or group that has considered demolition-by-heat-weakening (with the exception of Apollo20's speculative AP model).

...suggests his heat weakening is different. (Apollo20's model) I'm sure the professors in the NIST will be shocked to hear they aren't "credentialed professional." Knowing how much they respect Max Photon's opinion and all...

 

[lisabob2]

Interesting. Perhaps the WHOLE quote would have been more honest:

I pasted exact words from the Seattle times article, but what difference is there? not any that I could see.
Interesting that Robertson said:
on the PBS show “Why the Towers Fell,” Robertson stated: “With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered."
Is Robertson getting forgetfull? or maybe he is lying for a reason, or maybe since Skilling was chief engineer Robertson did not know about the "white paper" Or maybe Skilling was mistaken? You have a point without the documents it is hard to know what parameters were used for sure, but I am pretty sure Skilling was not wrong.

 

[beachnut]

Jones did not claim the columns in the pictures were damaged by cd, he has said that test could prove what did damage the columns in the pictures. He thought that they could be from thermite or thermate, but he did not make any such claims.
please provide a direct quote from Jones to prove your point because I have reread his article and I find no support for your statement anywhere.
So specifically your sources are wrong about the statements Jones makes.
Have you read any of Jones articles at all? How about David Griscom?
Maybe if you read the actual articles you will see what Jones has really claimed?

Jones make you think they could be cut with thermite; he is wrong; he had said in earlier paper said they were cut with thermite; he was a liar. He made up his ideas 4 years after 9/11. He also started a fake journal because his paper was not accepted by the real world journals. You have showed up and missed history! Jones has fiction; Why do you support him?

Plus I showed you what the chief structural engineer said about 9/11 and more. What do you think about Robertson NOW? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_E._Robertson So what do you think now?

Better listen to Robertson and read what I posted earlier, or you are not being very good at learning about 9/11.

 

[twinstead]

I pasted exact words from the Seattle times article, but what difference is there? not any that I could see.
Interesting that Robertson said:
on the PBS show “Why the Towers Fell,” Robertson stated: “With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered."
Is Robertson getting forgetfull? or maybe he is lying for a reason, or maybe since Skilling was chief engineer Robertson did not know about the "white paper" Or maybe Skilling was mistaken? You have a point without the documents it is hard to know what parameters were used for sure, but I am pretty sure Skilling was not wrong.

You're 'pretty sure' huh? Exactly what expertise do you bring to the table to override basically the entire world's structural engineering community?

 

[beachnut]

I pasted exact words from the Seattle times article, but what difference is there? not any that I could see.
Interesting that Robertson said:
on the PBS show “Why the Towers Fell,” Robertson stated: “With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered."
Is Robertson getting forgetfull? or maybe he is lying for a reason, or maybe since Skilling was chief engineer Robertson did not know about the "white paper" Or maybe Skilling was mistaken? You have a point without the documents it is hard to know what parameters were used for sure, but I am pretty sure Skilling was not wrong.

I already told you Robertson was chief. But you failed to do real research yet.

No, your ideas on Skilling are wrong. The design was for a low speed, low fuel, lost in the fog 707, energy at impact about 187 pounds of TNT.

9/11 the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater. You be wrong again. All of 9/11 truth is wrong. You are wrong again. Why?

Impacts of 11 and 175 are energy events equal to 1300 to 2200 pound of TNT! 7 to 11 times greater than the design of the WTC for an aircraft impact. No, Robertson is correct because the fuel on the slow speed impace would burn up out side the structure and the WTC could withstand an impact of a slow speed 707! This is why physics is needed to understand the impacts! You could use some knowledge on physics.

Happy New Year, you should learn physics.

Leslie E. Robertson said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

SLOW is 180 mph, fast was 9/11 470 and 590 mph~!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_E._Robertson

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is a joke, right? Isn't your job as an 'investigator' to know what the evidence is on both sides?

I doubt very much that lisabob2 is any sort of "investigator". S/he seems to look upon Jones et al. like a small child looks upon their father: s/he thinks they are all-knowing.

lisabob's posts here seem to be of that type: ignorant hero worship.

 

[beachnut]

I doubt very much that lisabob2 is any sort of "investigator". S/he seems to look upon Jones et al. like a small child looks upon their father: s/he thinks they are all-knowing.

lisabob's posts here seem to be of that type: ignorant hero worship.

You seem to be right. Have you been over to 93? Happy new year.

 

[FactCheck]

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.

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

nuff said...

Happy New Year east coast!

 

[Burrell]

I dont believe in the stupid CT theories that most truthers believe about control Demo and whatnot, but there has been some rather interesting research involving money trails The stock market and what not. I do feel there was some foul play involving the events of September 11 and feel that further research might reveal a little more.

At this moment i cant exactly remember where i seen these studies and articles i have read but i will try and find them as soon as possible and post them up. It is an interesting read if you have the time.

Hi Oneshot. I am not sure if this was in reply to my post or not, if not then sorry and please skip over the next paragraph or two.

The main issue is that the money made on the stock market is after the event. My argument is that, after all this time (over six years), I have not seen any theory which can match the motivation argument for the 'Official Version'. For a conspiracy to function, there must be a motivation and, to date, the CT's do not have a strong enough motivational element to support treason when placed in the context of the events and individual.

All that to one side, if you can find the articles, I would love to read them.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why does lisa keep ignoring key questions?

 

[rwguinn]

Why does lisa keep ignoring key questions?

It's bee said before:
T%he troofer Credo
Blather
Ignore
Repeat

 

[uk_dave]

No buddy, your a little off on this comment! What they mean when they say "the laws of physics were broke that day" is that if the official account were true then the laws of physics were broke. They say this because they believe it was impossible for the building to have fallen that fast and for fire to melt the steel and what not....

But they totally fail to provide any evidence of this. Instead it's all 'common sense' or 'gut feeling'.

Let's face it, a load of 'truthers' with no knowledge of construction, watched the videos of the wtc towers collapse and because they held one (or all) of the following preconceptions....

1. 'The Man' must have done it because that's what 'the man' does
2. 'The Man' must have done it because it's too hard to conceive of an uncontrollable religious fundamentalist ethic behind such an act
3. 'The Man' must have done it because I hate 'The Man'

.....they immediately decided that their perception of how the buildings should have looked while collapsing was at odds with what they saw and based upon this arrogant ignorance they then set out to find some kind of justification for their beliefs.

Failing to find any justification they're left with trying to claim that the official account was in defiance of the laws of physics.

They fail at that too.

 

[FactCheck]

Why does lisa keep ignoring key questions?

Other than the obvious one?

 

[Miragememories]

You don't say...one of the county's top architects?


Let's listen in on Newtons Bit for a second...

"I'd probably say that he's [Richard Gage] an above average to good architect, as far as the business side of making money for yourself and for your company and doing buildings that work. However, he makes an incredibly bad mistake that most architects know to avoid, and that is to admit architects know nothing about the structural design of buildings."

Source

Trevor (Newtons Bit) is entitled to his point of view.

If he wishes to believe that a single column condemns a building to total failure than sure it's okay.

If he wishes to believe that a NASA Shuttle re-entry generates similar air friction as that which occurred with the WTC twin towers well it's okay.

If he wants to believe that architects take a 4 year program of university study and learn nothing about the structural design of buildings...well hey, he's a civil engineer and an expert...and a go to expert here..so how could he be at fault?

Too funny.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Yes Max, he was laughing at your lack of facts and ignorance 9/11. His father things your ideas on 9/11 are just pure BS junk.

I like to thing about ideas.

I like thinging about idiots who always accuse those who disagree with them of having no facts.

Ahh thinging about those special one-trick ponies out there who embrace the herd but have only the singular role of screaming "liar liar pants on fire"

Too funny.

MM

 

[FactCheck]

Trevor (Newtons Bit) is entitled to his point of view.

If he wishes to believe that a single column condemns a building to total failure than sure it's okay.

If he wishes to believe that a NASA Shuttle re-entry generates similar air friction as that which occurred with the WTC twin towers well it's okay.

If he wants to believe that architects take a 4 year program of university study and learn nothing about the structural design of buildings...well hey, he's a civil engineer and an expert...and a go to expert here..so how could he be at fault?

Too funny.

MM

As Miragememories is also entitled to his point of view. He wants to make light of a hypothesis which has been published in a respected structural engineering magazine that's also fine. If he wants to believe the conspiracy industry when it hasn't published a single paper in ANY respected structural or civil engineering magazine in the world in over 6 years then that's also fine.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

It's also ironic and more laughable than what Newtons Bit thinks.

 

[beachnut]

I like to thing about ideas.

I like thinging about idiots who always accuse those who disagree with them of having no facts.

Ahh thinging about those special one-trick ponies out there who embrace the herd but have only the singular role of screaming "liar liar pants on fire"

Too funny.

MM

2007, no facts or rational conclusions from MM on 9/11. I expect 2008 to be the same unless you become a knowledgeable person on 9/11. LCFC is out, it is full of false information already explained and debunked like all of your ideas on 9/11.

When you find a fact on 9/11 you will change your online name and disappear. Funny, when you gain knowledge and stop believing the liars of 9/11 truth, like LC junk, you will be cured of ignorant on 9/11. Simple, like box cutters, impacts, fires, and collapse. Good luck fact less person.

You could prove me wrong and provide facts and evidence to support your conclusion on 9/11. But you can't; 2008 another facts less year for you on 9/11. Happy New Year

 

[Miragememories]

As Miragememories is also entitled to his point of view. He wants to make light of a hypothesis which has been published in a respected structural engineering magazine that's also fine. If he wants to believe the conspiracy industry when it hasn't published a single paper in ANY respected structural or civil engineering magazine in the world in over 6 years then that's also fine.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

It's also ironic and more laughable than what Newtons Bit thinks.

Well don't laugh too loud..someone might hear you and ask you why?

That publication addressed the subject of WTC7 only.

Newtons Bit did not confine himself to a single building.

He claimed that single column failure collapse was an expectation for ALL non-government buildings!

MM