9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[GuyPinestra]

Go to the doctor and get a prescription for two testicles....have it filled immediately *****.

Project much?

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.

When do you graduate middle school?

 

[daws101]

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.
Point out the "bullshit with more bullshit". Go on I'm waiting, or are you still just all talk???

bullshit with bullshit.

1.we post evidence that proves it false.

wrong you post non verifiable non credible assumptions..

2. I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.

wrong you post conjecture not facts. since physics is science, the last part of that statement is irrelevant.

3.I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing.

you have no proof that nist was intentionally complicit
you have no evidence they falsified their data.
again what you post is hearsay not fact.
you have no evidence that some group other than the extremist Muslims destroyed the wtc.

4.No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow

totally incorrect, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
now shit head, try to get this right.
the laws of physics were not altered in any way on 911
the towers ,wtc 7 all fell according to the laws of physics.
I did not insist they collapse the way they did, they just did.
in your complete willful ignorance you ignore a basic principle of science "there are no coulds or shoulds in science "
events either happen or they don't.
as to my believing as evidence of anything but belief is just you and you massive ego making false connections.

5. you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

this statement beside being another false assumption is you attempting claim an imagined superiority.
I know exactly what's being discussed and since most all of what you discuss is specious and not fact I check it for validity and it comes up short so, I dismiss it.
the only thing you ever proven is you are convinced that the shit you yammer constantly about is fact
in reality it's not even close .
on the other hand you've proven beyond doubt that you are a pretentious prick with no life.

So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

I can go back and link to the many times you have pussied out, and made huge ******* idiotic blunders. You can't do the same for my posts asshole LOL!

Don't think your NIST theory is full of specious conjecture? PROVE IT THEN! It should be easy go on try it!!
My opinions are "not even close" to being factual??? OK...PROVE WHERE THEY ARE WRONG...
You say I post conjecture not facts??? Then man up and show your facts that counter my so called "conjecture"..


But you'll probably just say that you already have...right??? Again I'm way ahead of you, you've been running the same scam since you came on board the USMB.
You have no proof that backs up what you say loser!

already have! what do you not understand about "everything you post is based on a false premise"
it's not a tough concept .
what that means is any subsequent crap you post about 911 that comes from that premise is by definition false.
no matter how hard you wish it was not.
there is no need for me to prove anything I post
you're the one who claims a conspiracy it's your job to prove it.
my part is to put up the facts and see if your allegations measure up.
they do not and that's all the proof needed.
btw it no scam that's just another one of your false assumptions.

 

[daws101]

Project much?

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.

When do you graduate middle school?

stop whining you're just pissed because I beat you to it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.

When do you graduate middle school?

stop whining you're just pissed because I beat you to it.

Whining? Hell, I'm LAUGHING at you!!

King of the pre-pubescent insult!

 

[candycorn]

still no quotations of any major inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission Report. Bulletproof.

 

[Gamolon]

Haven't seen pictures or videos of the actual events have you? See the problem with ignorant ***** like you is, the state conspiracy theory dogma whose nuts you cling to, has absolutely no evidence or proof that the WTC buildings could have imploded/collapsed by fire/kerosene.

You mean fire/kerosene AND damage to their support structure via impact from the jets right? You always seem to forget that part for some reason.

There are also properties of steel and the temperature it must be heated to, for durations of time before it gives way like spaghetti noodles.

According to you it was only heat that effected the steel right? I suppose you think you'd get the same results between applying only heat to a piece of steel as opposed to applying heat AND a LOAD to the same piece. Which would fail faster?

The best hypothesis that explains their demise is not due to fires and office combustibles.

That's because you keep leaving out key pieces such as impact damage and stress loads on the steel being heated.

 

[Gamolon]

Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?

Ejected? You've had this explained to you before. Please show us a video of a piece of steel being ejected horizontally (sideways) with force with very little amount of downward motion.

Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?

Hot enough for what? Melting? Failure? DO you have some numbers? Please provide numbers that show when a piece of steel will fail when applying, for example, 600 degrees to it and increasing loads.

Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?

What exactly fell through the path of most resistance? Please explain? Do you even know what you are talking about? You need to learn about localized failure. A structure is built for all connections and components to work together to distribute loads, loads in a state of non-movement.

Do you think the engineers who built those towers calculated the stress and load of the top floors coming down onto the next floor below to see if it would stay intact? The load of that top "block" coming down would be transferred to the components and would FAIL the weakest ones. Hence the following...

How do you expect these floor truss supports around attached around the perimeter columns:

To resist the load generated from this upper "block" falling onto them:

Also, please explain what components of the tower below the upper "block" created your "path of most resistance".

 

[Gamolon]

Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!

Hey Guy.

According to this "eyewitness" account, there was a waterfall AND a freight train that caused all the ruckus and NOT a tornado right?

"I was once close enough to hear the sound of a tornado," Smith said. "It sounded like a freight train and a waterfall simultaneously."

'It Sounded Like a Freight Train': The Dangers of Storm Chasing

 

[Gamolon]

The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick.

Which components are you talking about? Core columns? Perimeter columns?

Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

I love it!

Do you treat all objects and structures as one solid object? How incredibly stupid. Using your logic, a baseball can NEVER smash through the window of a house because the relative supporting mass of the entire house attached to the window behind it wouldn't allow that to happen right?

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

The fires didn't get hot enough? At what temperature does steel start to weaken? Now add a load to said steel?

Also, why do you continually forget to add the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns? What happened to the load from the upper structure above that those previously undamaged core and perimeter columns? Those previously undamaged components used to help support SOME of the load from above right? Did that load vanish like a fart in the wind? Or was it redistributed to the other remaining components? Now weaken those remaining components in addition to adding more load to them when the other components were damaged/severed due to the impact?

Now what?

 

[Mr. Jones]

The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick.

Which components are you talking about? Core columns? Perimeter columns?

Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

I love it!

Do you treat all objects and structures as one solid object? How incredibly stupid. Using your logic, a baseball can NEVER smash through the window of a house because the relative supporting mass of the entire house attached to the window behind it wouldn't allow that to happen right?

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

The fires didn't get hot enough? At what temperature does steel start to weaken? Now add a load to said steel?

Also, why do you continually forget to add the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns? What happened to the load from the upper structure above that those previously undamaged core and perimeter columns? Those previously undamaged components used to help support SOME of the load from above right? Did that load vanish like a fart in the wind? Or was it redistributed to the other remaining components? Now weaken those remaining components in addition to adding more load to them when the other components were damaged/severed due to the impact?

Now what?

Now what? Now maybe you can present how exactly did NIST assume that collapse was going to be a certainty. What did they base their conclusions on?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans. They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.
Fire damage would be a slow progressive action, and the expected outcome of such fire damage would have been partial failures at the parts succumbing to the most intense heat.
IOW's, the parts of the building most heavily damaged, would be expected to fail first, then the collapsing parts would encounter much resistance provided by the undamaged, more robust lower parts below.
This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
This is not what we saw. Why not?
As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?

BTW, it was the Bazant theory of collapse (that was released 2 days after the attacks?) that used the upper and lower block analogy, that NIST reinforced and used.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days.
So if you have a problem with this take it up with them.

In it they describe "creep buckling" of columns when mentioning the steel slowly losing its strength. This was not a "creep" it was stable on minute and then all resistance was suddenly lost.
They said that "the heating PROBABLY accelerated due to loss of fire insulation material" NIST conducted testing that was inconclusive regarding this.
How many other instances of even larger fires have been witnessed, with no total global collapse in under 20 seconds observed?

They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.
They mention that "At that moment, the upper
part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The
vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it
is not heated."
What is lacking in this theory, is that all of this does not happen instantly. It takes time for the undamaged parts to be overcome, especially the parts that are not weakened have not sustained any damage by fire.
Again they leave out the readily obvious debris falling away from the buildings, so it can not contribute to the load, and therefore has less kinetic energy involved.
They don't take into account the buildings reserve strength ratios, either.


They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structure would supply. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was proven false.
Using videos, it was also determined buy others, that the roof of the towers, did not experience any halting, or hesitation as would be expected when the 2 masses met.
The collapse progression continued seemingly uncontested by undamaged, stronger components below. The argument has been made that, as each subsequent floor succumbed to failure, their weight was then added to the burden that the lower had to resist. A major problem with this is that we can observe much of this supposed added weight burden, being ejected away from the building, and another part of them was turned to dust.

Bottom line is that NIST has no data to support a total global collapse theory.
No historical precedent to base it on, and failed testing, using exaggerated temps, and figures.
The collapses should have taken significantly longer. They know this which is why they don't go into any detail about it.
They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structures would supply and the collapsing parts would encounter. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was false.
Where is the data to back up the NIST conclusions?


What you are asking me to provide, is what you should be demanding in a report from those charged with that responsibility. That would be an explanation with the data that substantiates their assumption/theory.
Those buildings were assisted by something else other then fires and plane damage, and they were charged with making the fire and damage only theory fit. But their own reports
betray them.
They came down too quick. 3 times in one day. There are too many anomalies to even be considered coincidental. They don't explain why.

 

[Gamolon]

The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.

Complete and utter BS. This statement of yours PROVES you have not one single clue how buildings structures are designed. Engineers design buildings to redistribute loads when the building is 100% functional.

Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.

That's impossible!

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

WTF are you smoking?

Let's see if you can understand how impossible it is to do what you say.

Did the engineers run calculations on the following scenarios?

Scenario 1-
79th floor, 10% east face perimeter column removal, 2% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 79 handle the load placed upon from floors 80 and above?

Scenario 2-
50th floor, 30% east face perimeter column removal, 5% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 50 handle the load placed upon from floors 51 and above?

Scenario 3-
50th, 51st, 52nd floors, 10% east face column removal, 20% west face column removal, 1% core column removal on floor 52. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components on those floors handle the load placed upon them from floors 53 and above?

Do you see the point yet? There are an infinite number of possible damage scenarios that you think engineers have design for.

Total BS. As I said, you have no clue.

They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.

And you have calculations showing that the remaining steel components in those damaged areas should have remained structurally sound? Let's see the calculations showing the temperatures that the steel reached in addition to the loads placed upon them that show they shouldn't have failed.

Fire damage would be a slow progressive action, and the expected outcome of such fire damage would have been partial failures at the parts succumbing to the most intense heat.

Wrong. Fire weakened/damage column + a load can equal immediate failure.

, the parts of the building most heavily damaged, would be expected to fail first, then the collapsing parts would encounter much resistance provided by the undamaged, more robust lower parts below.

Hmmm. Didn't the upper block of one of the towers tilt first?

This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
This is not what we saw. Why not?

Because the "debris pile" descended upon each floor in succession and caused the floor trusses to fail. That's why you see the perimeter column get pushed outwards.

As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?

Why do you continue to act like the entire bottom of the tower is a solid object? It was comprised of many components connected together. Those connections failed when stressed by the descending debris pile.

 

[Gamolon]

They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.

Wow.

They aren't "two masses". The are tow objects comprised of many different pieces and connections. The individual connections and pieces that cannot withstand a certain load will fail first. They're not solid blocks!

 

[Gamolon]

They don't take into account the buildings reserve strength ratios, either.

Please provide your definition of a "strength ratio".

 

[daws101]

The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick.

Which components are you talking about? Core columns? Perimeter columns?



I love it!

Do you treat all objects and structures as one solid object? How incredibly stupid. Using your logic, a baseball can NEVER smash through the window of a house because the relative supporting mass of the entire house attached to the window behind it wouldn't allow that to happen right?

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.

The fires didn't get hot enough? At what temperature does steel start to weaken? Now add a load to said steel?

Also, why do you continually forget to add the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns? What happened to the load from the upper structure above that those previously undamaged core and perimeter columns? Those previously undamaged components used to help support SOME of the load from above right? Did that load vanish like a fart in the wind? Or was it redistributed to the other remaining components? Now weaken those remaining components in addition to adding more load to them when the other components were damaged/severed due to the impact?

Now what?

Now what? Now maybe you can present how exactly did NIST assume that collapse was going to be a certainty. What did they base their conclusions on?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans. They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.
Fire damage would be a slow progressive action, and the expected outcome of such fire damage would have been partial failures at the parts succumbing to the most intense heat.
IOW's, the parts of the building most heavily damaged, would be expected to fail first, then the collapsing parts would encounter much resistance provided by the undamaged, more robust lower parts below.
This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
This is not what we saw. Why not?
As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?

BTW, it was the Bazant theory of collapse (that was released 2 days after the attacks?) that used the upper and lower block analogy, that NIST reinforced and used.
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days.
So if you have a problem with this take it up with them.

In it they describe "creep buckling" of columns when mentioning the steel slowly losing its strength. This was not a "creep" it was stable on minute and then all resistance was suddenly lost.
They said that "the heating PROBABLY accelerated due to loss of fire insulation material" NIST conducted testing that was inconclusive regarding this.
How many other instances of even larger fires have been witnessed, with no total global collapse in under 20 seconds observed?

They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.
They mention that "At that moment, the upper
part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The
vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it
is not heated."
What is lacking in this theory, is that all of this does not happen instantly. It takes time for the undamaged parts to be overcome, especially the parts that are not weakened have not sustained any damage by fire.
Again they leave out the readily obvious debris falling away from the buildings, so it can not contribute to the load, and therefore has less kinetic energy involved.
They don't take into account the buildings reserve strength ratios, either.


They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structure would supply. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was proven false.
Using videos, it was also determined buy others, that the roof of the towers, did not experience any halting, or hesitation as would be expected when the 2 masses met.
The collapse progression continued seemingly uncontested by undamaged, stronger components below. The argument has been made that, as each subsequent floor succumbed to failure, their weight was then added to the burden that the lower had to resist. A major problem with this is that we can observe much of this supposed added weight burden, being ejected away from the building, and another part of them was turned to dust.

Bottom line is that NIST has no data to support a total global collapse theory.
No historical precedent to base it on, and failed testing, using exaggerated temps, and figures.
The collapses should have taken significantly longer. They know this which is why they don't go into any detail about it.
They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structures would supply and the collapsing parts would encounter. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was false.
Where is the data to back up the NIST conclusions?


What you are asking me to provide, is what you should be demanding in a report from those charged with that responsibility. That would be an explanation with the data that substantiates their assumption/theory.
Those buildings were assisted by something else other then fires and plane damage, and they were charged with making the fire and damage only theory fit. But their own reports
betray them.
They came down too quick. 3 times in one day. There are too many anomalies to even be considered coincidental. They don't explain why.

more specious assumption by sister jones

 

[SAYIT]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Indeed. I don't know how these "truthers" do it!

 

[SAYIT]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

There is nothing to be gained by "approving" the NIST findings. They exist and they are credible enough to satisfy most physicists and engineers. Only those who disagree are motivated to speak out, some for the fame and glory, some for the money and a few because they sincerely believe the BS they spew. In all they total .01% of the professional world of their peers.
Here is one scholar - Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay - who found it worth his time to refute your 9/11 silliness and that of the 9/11 "truther" movement at large. His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT Movement:
Nutty 9-11 Physics

 

[SAYIT]

Written by Richard Gage,

So what? Why not address the issues instead of attacking the messenger, as if the issue is somehow out of bounds because of who delivers it?
The science and physics don't fit the NIST narrative, and we've pointed out how it doesn't, and the best you can do is disparage the messenger?
One what grounds?

It is not required to respond point by point to every CT loon who staggers onto the Internet. It is incumbent on all rational, open-minded peeps to weed out the BSers. Gage's BS has been heard and found to be lame enough to dismiss him and his half-truths and pseudoscience. Like most CTs he destroyed his own rep and has been justifiably relegated to the carnival freak bin.

 

[SAYIT]

Project much?

projecting testicles must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.

When do you graduate middle school?

Sadly the guy you demean makes you look like a sick jackass. So what does that say about your maturity level, Princess?

 

[SAYIT]

The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.

OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!

Hey Guy.

According to this "eyewitness" account, there was a waterfall AND a freight train that caused all the ruckus and NOT a tornado right?

"I was once close enough to hear the sound of a tornado," Smith said. "It sounded like a freight train and a waterfall simultaneously."

'It Sounded Like a Freight Train': The Dangers of Storm Chasing

Unfortunately the rational, logical approach not only fails to dent the foil hats of the CT Movement's nutters, it infuriates them. Perhaps a couple of 9 year olds are needed to speak to them in a language they can comprehend.

 

[daws101]

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?

Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.

There is nothing to be gained by "approving" the NIST findings. They exist and they are credible enough to satisfy most physicists and engineers. Only those who disagree are motivated to speak out, some for the fame and glory, some for the money and a few because they sincerely believe the BS they spew. In all they total .01% of the professional world of their peers.
Here is one scholar - Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay - who found it worth his time to refute your 9/11 silliness and that of the 9/11 "truther" movement at large. His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT Movement:
Nutty 9-11 Physics

only one problem with that ....he's in on it!!