Official story: why believe it?

[realitybites]

Mirage, I'm not sure which is more telling about you and the folks that comprise the "truth" movement.

- The fact that not one peer-reviewed paper has yet to be published on your side of the aisle.

- Or the fact that that doesn't seem to bother you or anyone else who proclaim to be searching for "truth".

 

[Molinaro]

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....
They dont say it in general the way inwhich you have used it in this comment.
So the fact that you called her ingorant with with the use of your clearly wrong terminology is kind of stupid.

Everyone knows the laws of physics cant be broken at the moment as well as the truthers which is why they say "The Laws of physics have been broken in the official story". Which in turn really means them calling the official story a blatant lie!

Your missing the problem.

The problem is that whenever a truther posits the laws of physics being broken, they don't actualy provide any physics to support the assertion.

That's why it's ok to use that phrase as a red flag when put forth.. without any physics to go with it!

Someone who is deserving of respect and a full reply will undoubtedly support any assertion along with a bunch of math/physics to detail the argument.

Truthers don't do that because they infact have nothing. Their so called arguments that purport to be based on a violation of the laws of physics end being:

a) Absent of any math to detail the physics.

b) Based on a false assumption about some word or phrase that they've pulled out of their memories in a sometimes related area of science.

c) My favorite, an arugment that actualy demonstrates the opposite of their conclusion.

 

[tsig]

That's how you can tell there's a conspiracy. There's no evidence.

As we said about the stealth bomber.

If you don't hear it then you look up and don't see it that's the steath.

 

[CptColumbo]

Well ask Newtons Bit.

Maybe a shuttle crashed there?

Is that a relevent question, or are you trying to be clever?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Wow. That's true. Very good.

Some of them don't believe the official story about 9/11.

And if they could produce any evidence, that might be relevant.

Some (most) people believe the accepted theory that is based on evidence and the research of scientists (private and public), criminalists and investigative journalists. Does that convince you?

Some believe in no planes, space rays and no doubt all kinds of other ridiculous notions.

Some people still believe the Earth is flat, that doesn't make the "hollow Earth" theories more credible. The half way point between two opinions isn't fact, it's another opinion.

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Excuse me for not saying "hot diggity dog that's right".

Pardon me for, when presented with a theory that fits the evidence and the laws of physics, I pick that rather than the premise that involves technology that doesn't exist and defies the laws of nature.

Skeptics love pouring on the questions

Sucks when we don't just accept a theory blindly as you have, doesn't it. Then you might have to do some research and thinking on your own to streghten your arguement, or accept that you have been wasting your time with a foolhardy venture with no merit.

and since the establishment (NIST) shows no interest in the answers, there's no need for them to go on the defensive.

One of the largest criminal investigation in the history of this country. Yeah, they could care less....or they don't want to publish preliminary findings, because they don't want to have to correct them later and have CTers blow a load.

Well defaultdotxbe, why don't you tell me how many shuttle crashes it would take to account for the extreme latent heat that persisted at the ground zero sites for WTC 1, 2 & 7???

Take your time.

Consider your reply carefully.

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

MM

Too bad you still wouldn't understand it, even if he/she felt it was relevant.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well ask Newtons Bit.

Maybe a shuttle crashed there?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Some of them don't believe the official story about 9/11.

Some believe in no planes, space rays and no doubt all kinds of other ridiculous notions.

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Excuse me for not saying "hot diggity dog that's right".

Skeptics love pouring on the questions and since the establishment (NIST) shows no interest in the answers, there's no need for them to go on the defensive.

Well defaultdotxbe, why don't you tell me how many shuttle crashes it would take to account for the extreme latent heat that persisted at the ground zero sites for WTC 1, 2 & 7???

Take your time.

Consider your reply carefully.

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

MM

mind answering my question first? how do explosives or thermite account for the persistant heat better than the fires that burned under the pile for months?

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

 

[Corsair 115]

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Why does all the combustible material set on fire after the aircraft impact matter less than the burning aircraft fuel? You seem to be implying that "office furniture fires" as you put it are of relatively little consequence or danger. What is your basis for saying that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why does all the combustible material set on fire after the aircraft impact matter less than the burning aircraft fuel? You seem to be implying that "office furniture fires" as you put it are of relatively little consequence or danger. What is your basis for saying that?

Especially when in the Manchester tests the beams got up to over 1,000°C in places within 50 mins in just an "office funiture fire."

 

[tsig]

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 know he was.

 

[tsig]

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

I haven't heard that since the third grade now that I thing about it.

 

[tsig]

What I addressed was YOU "FactCheck"

You defended Newtons Bit based on one article that happened to parallel his beliefs.

I attacked the complete argument.

Newtons Bit has the bad habit of making idiotic assertions that don't hold an ounce of water.

If you wish to question my post, I suggest you do so in it's entirety and not attempt a lame cherry picking like your last attempt!

MM

Do lame cherries have broken stems?

Or are they not virgins?

 

[tsig]

Rewrite the text books! The space shuttles heat sheild is heated by thermite!!! What else can it be!!!

Heh!

They had to use thermite to fake the re-entry man has never been to space.

 

[tsig]

What is the basis for comparison?

Are we to accept the legitimacy of comparing the frictional heat of a shuttle re-entry to that incurred by building materials in a cascading collapse (all falling close to the same speed unlike a high speed shuttle moving through static air) and other than supposedly brief, overwhelming collisions, continuing a relatively short distance to the ground (compared to the distance the shuttle travels).

In addition, the heat supposedly generated by this collapse is supposedly sufficient to account for ground zero high temperatures and molten metal for several months.

Does that sufficiently convey the flaw in Newton Bit's bizarre comparison?

MM

We are to accept that the frictional heat will be guily elete as it sits on the pedestal of the molecule.

 

[tsig]

Well ask Newtons Bit.

Maybe a shuttle crashed there?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Some of them don't believe the official story about 9/11.

Some believe in no planes, space rays and no doubt all kinds of other ridiculous notions.

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Excuse me for not saying "hot diggity dog that's right".

Skeptics love pouring on the questions and since the establishment (NIST) shows no interest in the answers, there's no need for them to go on the defensive.

Well defaultdotxbe, why don't you tell me how many shuttle crashes it would take to account for the extreme latent heat that persisted at the ground zero sites for WTC 1, 2 & 7???

Take your time.

Consider your reply carefully.

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

MM

And some believe that space aliens rule their lives.

A ufo crashed in NYC and the gvnmnt is covering up.

 

[lisabob2]

- "The fact that not one peer-reviewed paper has yet to be published on your side of the aisle."

The fact is Steven Jones, Gordon Ross both have peer reviewed papers published.
Steven Jones has had over 35 peer reviewed papers during his career.
David Griscom who has over 185 peer reviewed papers also says Jones paper has been peer reviewed.
the obvious question is why should we not take Griscoms view in this matter? Who has more qualifications to judge whether a paper has been peer reviewed then sombody who has so many himself.
Why should we disregard such a well respected scientist because some "critical thinkers" don't agree with his professional assesment?

 

[lisabob2]

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.


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

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling quoted in 93 Seattle Times article.

So either Skilling, the Chief engineer of the world trade center, is wrong or you are.
I suppose somebody who has the experience and resume' of Skilling might be wrong but it is most likely is that you are.

 

[Good Lt]

The fact is Steven Jones, Gordon Ross both have peer reviewed papers published.

Where can we find one published on 9-11 ?

Give the Journal name, issue number, year, page numbers, etc.

We'll wait.

David Griscom who has over 185 peer reviewed papers also says Jones paper has been peer reviewed

By whom? And what scholarly, reputable journal can we find these unassaiable articles concerning 9-11 issues?

Journal names, page numbers, issue numbers, dates, etc.

the obvious question is why should we not take Griscoms view in this matter? Who has more qualifications to judge whether a paper has been peer reviewed then sombody who has so many himself

LOL

It is becoming evident that you have no idea what scientific peer review is.

Why should we disregard such a well respected scientist because some "critical thinkers" don't agree with his professional assesment?

Because he hasn't given a professional assesment. He's given baseless, fact-free conspiracy nonsense that he won't submit to any respectable journal.

Capice?

 

[Good Lt]

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling quoted in 93 Seattle Times article.

Unfortunately, he was wrong, wasn't he?

So either Skilling, the Chief engineer of the world trade center, is wrong or you are.
I suppose somebody who has the experience and resume' of Skilling might be wrong but it is most likely is that you are.

This is not a dichotomy, lisa. Skilling was merely giving an opinion, and his opinion did not apply to September 11. And his analysis was wrong, as the events of September 11 plainly showed.

It's called reality. Try joining it.

 

[lisabob2]

Is there a reason you put a quote after an identical quote?

Did you not look at Jone's work? Go check out the links you provided for everyone. Since that's all you will offer for your arguments are generic links, you get the same. Jones and the entire scholars group presented the pictures of the compressed steel sample form the WTC as evidence of melted steel. Only problem was that it wasn't melted, it was compressed. However that didn't stop these con artists from trying to use it to peddle their bogus thermite claim.




I got it form Jone's paper. And I am not talking about Calcium sulfate (which is also incorrect, I am referring to Barium Nitrate which makes up 21% of thermite. And none was found. Instead he focuses on the sulfur which makes up about 3% I believe. Again, he looked for individual components and not the signature of thermite. This is what you call LACK of scientific method.

Please just be honest and admit that the only reason you believe people like Jones is because you simply want there to be a conspiracy theory. You justify your beliefs in saying they are qualified, yet dismiss everything presented from people far more qualified than them.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS**************

Please cite the specific parts of this "official story" which violates the laws o physics. Don't just make an empty claim, back that claim up. This is about the 5th time you have been asked and have ignored the question based on YOUR claim.

You must be reading a different paper from Jones that I read. he did find barium. In fact he shows all the signatures of thermate were found.
At least in the paper I read

 

[lisabob2]

You must be reading a different paper from Jones that I read. he did find barium. In fact he shows all the signatures of thermate were found.
At least in the paper I read

the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate.
ok I spelled it wrong but that is the main ingredient in sheetrock

 

[Good Lt]

Please cite the specific parts of this "official story" which violates the laws o physics. Don't just make an empty claim, back that claim up. This is about the 5th time you have been asked and have ignored the question based on YOUR claim.

Address this, lisabob.

And provide citations for Jones' peer reviewed work on 9-11 published in reputable scholarly journals.

We're still waiting.