In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by neformore
They can't possibly have any idea, because they don't know exactly what was damaged.

I've made a similar statement earlier in this thread. NIST is theorizing, we're theorizing.

NIST has FEA, LS-DYNA, ANSYS, structural documents, etc to support their "theorizing".

And what do truthers have again, other than wild specualtion?

Originally posted by jthomas
That is entirely false.

It's only false because you want to run around with your fingers in your ears. NIST guessed about the amount of damage sustained to the cores of the towers. Just like I can guess about the amount of damage sustained to the cores as well.

You should hold NIST up to just as much scrutiny and criticism as you hold the truth movement. It might actually make you wake up out of your cesspool of denial.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
NIST has FEA, LS-DYNA, ANSYS, structural documents, etc to support their "theorizing".

And what do truthers have again, other than wild specualtion?

If you would recognize that people like Dr. Jones, for example, have the resources of his college in the form of equipment and faculty at his disposal for his research, you wouldn't have to ask that question. There are plenty of scientists, physicists, engineers, with resources. Go look them up and you shall see.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
That is entirely false.

It's only false because you want to run around with your fingers in your ears. NIST guessed about the amount of damage sustained to the cores of the towers. Just like I can guess about the amount of damage sustained to the cores as well.

You should hold NIST up to just as much scrutiny and criticism as you hold the truth movement. It might actually make you wake up out of your cesspool of denial.

Too bad you could not actually respond to my debunking of your claim, to wit, your claim that: "So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories."

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
NIST has FEA, LS-DYNA, ANSYS, structural documents, etc to support their "theorizing".

And what do truthers have again, other than wild specualtion?

If you would recognize that people like Dr. Jones, for example, have the resources of his college in the form of equipment and faculty at his disposal for his research, you wouldn't have to ask that question. There are plenty of scientists, physicists, engineers, with resources. Go look them up and you shall see.

So then it should be simple for you to provide an example of their analysis of the buildings, right?

So show us all an estimate from these pillars of pompitude that show the load distributions after plane impact, and further distributions during the fires.........

Ain't got it, do you?

That fact right there proves your statement a lie.

Congratulations, you're well on your way to earning the covetous "disinfo" badge.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If you would recognize that people like Dr. Jones, for example, have the resources of his college in the form of equipment and faculty at his disposal for his research, you wouldn't have to ask that question. There are plenty of scientists, physicists, engineers, with resources. Go look them up and you shall see.

To be fair they did chuck him out of his college. And they hadn't even batted an eyelid when he wrote a paper about the scientific evidence for Jesus living in America. I guess they thought his 9/11 stuff was even crazier.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
NIST has FEA, LS-DYNA, ANSYS, structural documents, etc to support their "theorizing".

And what do truthers have again, other than wild specualtion?

If you would recognize that people like Dr. Jones, for example, have the resources of his college in the form of equipment and faculty at his disposal for his research, you wouldn't have to ask that question. There are plenty of scientists, physicists, engineers, with resources. Go look them up and you shall see.

Not thee Dr Jones who claimed Jesus visited the USA correct me if I am wrong, he is a bad physicist NOT even an engineer

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
If you would recognize that people like Dr. Jones, for example, have the resources of his college in the form of equipment and faculty at his disposal for his research, you wouldn't have to ask that question. There are plenty of scientists, physicists, engineers, with resources. Go look them up and you shall see.

To be fair they did chuck him out of his college. And they hadn't even batted an eyelid when he wrote a paper about the scientific evidence for Jesus living in America. I guess they thought his 9/11 stuff was even crazier.

The fact that he retired hurts his crediblity. I still have yet to find one college who did an independant WTC investigation that supports the truther theories. If anyone can find one please let me know. I'm getting sick of the lack of unity in the truther movement.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
That is entirely false.

Too bad you could not actually respond to my debunking of your claim, to wit, your claim that: "So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories."

I think they are all just theories.

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

source: www.merriam-webster.com...

According to experts a plausible principle offered to explain the collapse of the WTC towers was airplanes and fire.

According to experts a plausible principle offered to explain the collapse of the WTC towers was ___________________.

Fill in the blank:

1. Thermite
2. Nano-thermite
3. Thermate
4. Nano-thermate
5. explosives (the kind that don't show up on seismographs)
6. energy weapons
7. top secret ultra high tech demolition (equipment or chemicals)
8. drone aircrafts with explosives in them
9. missles


This is where the truther movement fails. It has no unity. The debunker theories are all very tightly focused around one, very specific, core idea:

Damage was caused to the WTC towers by airplanes and falling debri causing fire insulation to be stripped away from steel. Steel was then heated to office fire temperatures which weakened the steel and eventually lead to the collapse of the towers. All of the debunkers experts agree on this one unified theory. (except for the MIT investigation which presents the theory that the south tower would have collapsed based entirely on airplane impact damage)

The experts for the truther movement are spread out among several different theories. I feel as if the most popular theory is that explosives were used to cause the collapse of the WTC towers.

This is the theory that offers questions that not many people can answer. Questions like:

How was the worlds largest demolition project completed in the middle of New York City, in occupied buildings without ANYONE knowing?

How come no videos of the WTC collapses have audible explosions within minutes prior to (and even during) the collapses of any of the WTC towers?

What floors of each of the buildings were explosives placed on?

If the point of failure was the point of airplane impact on WTC 1 and 2 why didn't the explosives detonate in the fire?

Specifically what types of explosives were used?

Why do the seismographs show that no explosives were used?







[edit on 19-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by jthomas
Too bad you could not actually respond to my debunking of your claim, to wit, your claim that: "So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories."

Actually, I did here. You just ignored it like you do everything else all the time.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then it should be simple for you to provide an example of their analysis of the buildings, right?

Sure can. Right here:

journalof911studies.com...


The rest of your post with the childish attacks discredits anything you have to say.






[edit on 19-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And they hadn't even batted an eyelid when he wrote a paper about the scientific evidence for Jesus living in America.

Ahhh, so discredit someone because of their religious beliefs now, huh? Gotta discredit someone anyway you can because you can't refute the evidence. How much lower can debunkers go?

And to his credit, he's likely correct. The gods visited everywhere on this world. Not just the middle east.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Not thee Dr Jones who claimed Jesus visited the USA

Ohh, yet another person who would discredit someone because of their religious beliefs. Last time I checked, the USA was a free country and anyone is free to express and believe in whatever religion they see fit.

If you don't like someone because of their religious beliefs, then you can get on a boat or a plane and go to another country that has the same beliefs as you. We don't tolerate that in this country.

Originally posted by iamcpc
The fact that he retired hurts his crediblity.

I don't know why it would. He can use any equipment he wants at the university, and he can have whatever faculty from the university help him in his research.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Too bad you could not actually respond to my debunking of your claim, to wit, your claim that: "So, no matter which side of the fence you sit on, the official conspiracy theory and the alternate conspiracy theories are all just theories."

Actually, I did here. You just ignored it like you do everything else all the time.

Your claims are nothing more than claims.

We're still waiting for you to refute the NIST investigations.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So then it should be simple for you to provide an example of their analysis of the buildings, right?

Sure can. Right here:

journalof911studies.com...

Hmmm, you ignored this part:

"So show us all an estimate from these pillars of pompitude that show the load distributions after plane impact, and further distributions during the fires......... "

I wonder if this means that all these charlatans, despite your statement about how competant they, and the facilities at their disposal, can't do it.

Scratch that. There's zero wonderment at all. They're all out of their league, unable to show anything at all.

Just like you.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Not thee Dr Jones who claimed Jesus visited the USA

Ohh, yet another person who would discredit someone because of their religious beliefs. Last time I checked, the USA was a free country and anyone is free to express and believe in whatever religion they see fit.

If you don't like someone because of their religious beliefs, then you can get on a boat or a plane and go to another country that has the same beliefs as you. We don't tolerate that in this country.

SO do you think he is right about Jesus visiting the USA , my comment HAS SWEET FA to do about his religious beliefs BUT about his credility in general but obviously even YOU didn't work that out

Like I also said he is a physicist NOT a structural engineer

By the way I am from a country thats HAD democracy and FREEDOM a lot longer than the USA

So lets see your answer re the JESUS visit

[edit on 20-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


No, I've got no problem with his religious beliefs. It's the fact that he tried to prove Jesus' holiday in America with science that I find so hilarious.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
That is entirely false.

It's only false because you want to run around with your fingers in your ears. NIST guessed about the amount of damage sustained to the cores of the towers. Just like I can guess about the amount of damage sustained to the cores as well.

You should hold NIST up to just as much scrutiny and criticism as you hold the truth movement. It might actually make you wake up out of your cesspool of denial.

The only theories that have been presented to explain the collapse of the WTC towers are only theories. It is a great tragedy that they will always remain theories and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
That is entirely false.

It's only false because you want to run around with your fingers in your ears. NIST guessed about the amount of damage sustained to the cores of the towers. Just like I can guess about the amount of damage sustained to the cores as well.

You should hold NIST up to just as much scrutiny and criticism as you hold the truth movement. It might actually make you wake up out of your cesspool of denial.

The only theories that have been presented to explain the collapse of the WTC towers are only theories. It is a great tragedy that they will always remain theories and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

Quite false. There is nothing more that anyone has to do. We know why and how the towers collapsed. There is no mystery there.

Because some do not want to accept the evidence, the methodology, and the conclusions is neither a reason nor an excuse to reject the investigations and studies - unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise and present evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the NIST investigations.

This is what I keep reminding 9/11 Truthers that they must understand and accomplish. And for almost 9 years they have rejected any responsibility for accepting their burden of proof and providing any evidence to support their claims.

You have been trying to take a middle road in an effort to "equalize" both sides as legitimate but there is no such middle road. Legitimacy is not proclaimed by fiat as 9/11 Truthers keep trying to do. It is earned - and strictly by the evidence that can be brought to the table. That is why 9/11 Truth has made no progress at all and never will.