TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I guess the structural engineers I just posted up are frauds too? Moron.

You only gave enough information on 4 of them for me to check wether or not they are licensed....

well as im in a good mood today.... allow me to check for you.....

William A Rice, P.E. Vermont

Date of Liscensure 08/01/2006 *****wealth of experience here..... 2 whole years......

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas *******no liscence to practice engineering in Texas

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Date of Liscensure 2000/10/18 **** again wealth of experience...


David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

currently holds a liscence but does not list date of origional liscensure on the registrar list. Since he is not affiliated with a Firm liscence (certificate of authorization in canada, it is safe to assume he is not a senior engineer (10+ years experience) as generally senior engineers are listed on firm liscence documents.

the other names did not provide a state of residence for me to check their credentials.


out of the 150-200 thousand practicing civil engineers in the US alone, you have managed to find 3 (liscenced) that happen to wear tinfoil hats on their days off...... what a breakthrough! you should write an article about it, then pay to have it published....

U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons� Role in 9/11

http://kassandraproject.wordpress.c...ns-role-in-911/

hmm.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp You only gave enough information on 4 of them for me to check wether or not they are licensed.... well as im in a good mood today.... allow me to check for you..... William A Rice, P.E. Vermont Date of Liscensure 08/01/2006 *****wealth of experience here..... 2 whole years...... Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas *******no liscence to practice engineering in Texas Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Date of Liscensure 2000/10/18 **** again wealth of experience... David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California currently holds a liscence but does not list date of origional liscensure on the registrar list. Since he is not affiliated with a Firm liscence (certificate of authorization in canada, it is safe to assume he is not a senior engineer (10+ years experience) as generally senior engineers are listed on firm liscence documents. the other names did not provide a state of residence for me to check their credentials. out of the 150-200 thousand practicing civil engineers in the US alone, you have managed to find 3 (liscenced) that happen to wear tinfoil hats on their days off...... what a breakthrough! you should write an article about it, then pay to have it published....

So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bullshit.

What a flake you are.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bullshit. What a flake you are.

I would consider a person who holds a PE or PEng liscence with >1o yrs experience (preferably 15-20 yrs) who has worked on at least 1 structure of similar complexity as the WTC towers to be credible and expert in their field. Engineers with 2-8 years experience are still designing box stores and simple high rise structures (<30 storries).

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Prove it is a fraud along with

it has been proven. i linked you to the thread where bentham shows us all that its not a real publication worthy of any concern.

even i could tell the journal wasn't worth shit because of the quality of jones' letter. i have experience in reading academic papers in humanities and (believe it or not) science and jones' paper lacks professionalism.

i know you dont have much of an education so i can understand that you might be fooled into thinking the publishing actually meant something, but you clearly havent read the paper if you do, haha.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut your claim that Richard Gage is also one as well.

gage is just a david ray griffin parrot, and both were destroyed by Ryan Mackey's paper HERE

but i wouldn't expect you to bother reading is because i know youre not the type of person to read something you disagree with. which is why you believe in all this "new world order" nonsense in the first place.

good luck, internet detective.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bullshit. What a flake you are.

Is there no end to your stupidity? It isn't like as an engineer you design a structure as complex as the WTC when you are 2 years out of school so how could you be qualified to comment on it?

How about this, you are sick and must have a rarely performed operation where if the doctor makes one mistake you die. You get to choose between a surgeon who is 2 years out of med school and has never performed this operation before or one who has 25 years experience and has successfully performed it many times in their career. Which one are you going to choose?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it has been proven. i linked you to the thread where bentham shows us all that its not a real publication worthy of any concern. even i could tell the journal wasn't worth shit because of the quality of jones' letter. i have experience in reading academic papers in humanities and (believe it or not) science and jones' paper lacks professionalism. i know you dont have much of an education so i can understand that you might be fooled into thinking the publishing actually meant something, but you clearly havent read the paper if you do, haha. gage is just a david ray griffin parrot, and both were destroyed by Ryan Mackey's paper HERE but i wouldn't expect you to bother reading is because i know youre not the type of person to read something you disagree with. which is why you believe in all this "new world order" nonsense in the first place. good luck, internet detective.

Ryan Mackay? You mean the internet shill. You are a fucking joke if you are basing your information off this whack job. I said prove they are frauds with real evidence not what some internet jerk off like yourself thinks. This is disinfo and it does not surprise me considering you get all your information from forums like randi.

LOL, you just made my day I thought you where serious all this time but you have shown your real colors.

Troll.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Prove it is a fraud along with your claim that Richard Gage is also one as well. These guys are going from university to university around the world and have the respect of many professionals. What do you have exactly? You are nothing but full of shit. Posting nonsense from that forum does not make you correct, I actually checked out the link and the forum is full of trolls, morons and disinformation. Looks like this is where you got that retarded 10 point list, LOL. Back up your claims with hard evidence. I guess the structural engineers I just posted up are frauds too? Moron.

Bentham Journals are a Fraud

quote:

The Bentham Journals Some of the guys over at JREF have dug up some interesting information regarding the Bentham Journals, the company that Steven Jones is all proud published his letter to the editor, for $600 of course. Some highlights: Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L: Colleagues:In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time. And this one: I was particularly pleased with the following: Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal. Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal. I don't know whether or not to be honored to be invited to contribute to the Open Journal of Sleep. If you look at the web page of the "Open Journal Advisory Board" http://www.bentham.org/open/toeconsj/EBM.htm you will find something remarkable. There is a list of about 40 economists who are "members of the advisory board," all but one of whose last names start with the letters A-C and only one of whom I have ever heard of. I suppose these are the top of the list of people who responded to the spam letters. What an embarrassing list to have one's name on.

And also, a complete and total debunking of any controlled demolition scenario by industry experts:

I know you won't read this because it is evidence that proves your points false but here it is anyway

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You mean the internet shill.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

HAHA, once again I see that retarded 10 point list from the degenerate web forum. I guess you cannot deny what people are really saying about 9/11 on a global scale.

You do not care to debate what the structural engineers which have certified experience have to say about the "official story" because you cannot comprehend the full picture. Resorting to pasting BS over and over again proves you cannot handle the real story of what happened.

If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. The official story of 9/11 has reached well beyond the boiling point.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Bentham Journals are a Fraud And also, a complete and total debunking of any controlled demolition scenario by industry experts: I know you won't read this because it is evidence that proves your points false but here it is anyway

Have you even thought for a second that people who look at the official story in the same light as myself already know this? People who have studied this information (and tons more) have all come to the same conclusion that the official story does not add up, it is not even close.

The official story leads to thousands of more questions, this is why people like myself question it. If you do not have a problem with wanting to know why so many innocent people died and BS wars on terror happened because of it based on fallacy go cry somewhere else.

Posting BS from screwloosechange and JREF forums like the troll PKC does not make you correct on the subject. It only shows you have to post re-hashed personal attacks against people who are questioning the legitimacy of a very thought out fairy tale.

I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes.

Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission.

This is what really speaks volumes.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut HAHA, once again I see that retarded 10 point list from the degenerate web forum. I guess you cannot deny what people are really saying about 9/11 on a global scale. You do not care to debate what the structural engineers which have certified experience have to say about the "official story" because you cannot comprehend the full picture. Resorting to pasting BS over and over again proves you cannot handle the real story of what happened. If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. The official story of 9/11 has reached well beyond the boiling point.

We continue to post things from that 10 point list because you continue to exhibit those characteristics in every post you make. And once again:

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Since you cannot understand that someone with 2 years of experience is far from an expert in a field and since you still cannot tell the difference between a vanity journal and an actual peer reviewed publication.

And again you are the one failing to debate here. How many times have I asked you to provide a hypothesis supported by evidence as to what happened at the Pentagon? It has to be coming up on ten times now and have you ever answered that direct question? Nope.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Have you even thought for a second that people who look at the official story in the same light as myself already know this? People who have studied this information (and tons more) have all come to the same conclusion that the official story does not add up, it is not even close. The official story leads to thousands of more questions, this is why people like myself question it. If you do not have a problem with wanting to know why so many innocent people died and BS wars on terror happened because of it based on fallacy go cry somewhere else. Posting BS from screwloosechange and JREF forums like the troll PKC does not make you correct on the subject. It only shows you have to post re-hashed personal attacks against people who are questioning the legitimacy of a very thought out fairy tale. I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes. Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission. This is what really speaks volumes.

No, what speaks volumes is that even though you dismiss the "official" account of 9/11 you cannot post even a single reasonable alternate theory of what happened that stands up to any kind of critical examination. And the far-fetched tinfoil hat theories you do post are always wild speculation that cannot be backed up with any legitimate evidence. The fact that you still lend credence to ludicrous "no-plane" and controlled demolition theories that even a large part of the truther community acknowledge as having no legitimacy destroys any credibility you may have once had.

quote:

Originally posted by Donnie The Retard I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes. Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission. This is what really speaks volumes.

speaks volumes to your mental retardation......


the 9/11 commission sought the professional opinion of experts in the field who did a thorough and propper investigation, studied the debris and had PERTINENT CREDENTIALS to back up their competance. Further more it was a publicly peer reviewed document. While not flawless, it is the most complete and defendable hypothesis presented to date.



Loose change had two pre-pubescent morons and the interweb......
-they had no expert testimony or input into their "research" (and i use that term very loosely)
-They had no evidence or scientific proof besides coincidence and un contexted quotes from irrelevant people. In fact their entire argument centers around eyewitness subjective interpretation by unqualified hispanic janitorial staff....


On one hand you blast the NIST report because it "raises questions" and then in the same damn scentance you go on to admit that your story is full of "minor errors" (which in fact are pretty fuckin major errors) yet loose change still has merrit?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes.

actually, it's popular because there are a lot of ignorant children like yourself that don't know any better.

for pure interest value, how old are you culorut? i'd like to know if youre part of the kiddy crew or the more disillusioned old hippie?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission. This is what really speaks volumes.

really? only minor errors? what does dylan think?

quote:

Dylan Avery � �We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That�s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts�. �

Kiddie crew? sure buddy, how about you go screw yourself. I have yet to see any solid evidence brought forth on your ridiculous claims. Pasting garbage from other disinformation websites on what other trolls think about other people it not justifying your cause. Remember in the real world you need evidence supporting fantasy beliefs.

Start reading things properly and placing them in the correct context, for one the guy (Dylan Avery) who made loose change stated exactly that the documentary was not perfect, you just posted it up yourself moron, he said it in his own words. No where do they state what they claim happened with 100% accuracy and no one can because the official story is full of holes and lies exactly like the "Weapons of Mass Destruction".


THE SOLE REASON(S) FOR A NEW CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11.


No one can answer why the towers collapsed exactly because the evidence was shipped away and melted down ever so quickly. You have professionals with credentials and even the trade towers designer saying that the planes could not have caused the towers to collapse in the fashion that they did. They where built to withstand much more. If you choose to ignore their credentials and real facts even after being proven wrong it is solely your problem.

No one can say it was Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon because none of planes have ever been matched to any parts. The only video released does not show Flight 77 and the flight data records released via the freedom of information act after many years from this same flight tells a different story. (flight path, speed, altitude, etc.)

The amount of G forces would of knocked out who ever was flying this airliner (and the others which crashed into the towers) well before it got close to the Pentagon. The supposed hijacker could barely fly a Cessna but they would like for you to blindly believe he became a super human pilot on 9/11 and defied G forces? Of course fairy tale stories can only explain this one, hence the official story.


World Trade 7 came down like a fucking sand castle and the official reports could only make what the "official" story claimed happened with tests well beyond what really occurred to the building in terms of stress loads. The penthouse on the top of WTC7 caved in first, how did these super fires take out the supports at the top? This ones easy, fires did not take out the supports. Demolition charges did, they blew it up.




Fires have never in HISTORY caused steel structures to be demolished in this fashion. If this is the case then demolition companies should stop spending their money on all the research, equipment and manpower and go buy a box of matchsticks instead, they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions by already.


United 93 which was shot down ended up in a billion pieces and again none of the parts where ever matched up. Random pieces of junk scattered all over the place exactly like at the Pentagon. The only difference is this plane did not have any layers of concrete walls to slam against yet the hole it created in the grass field was practically empty? Crashed or vaporised, which one is it? You cannot have both.


There are absolutely unanswered questions and everything is not 100% accurate regarding 9/11, you cannot be helped any further but to read and research on your own subjectively. These questions are just a fraction of questions raised if you are to look at the official story at face value. If you can live with them then so be it.

If you cannot then why not ask the government or the hired agencies why there are so many holes and unanswered questions, THEY are the ones who told you this incredible fairy tale story in the first place. Have millions of people read the wrong 9/11 Commission Report. Last time I checked there exists only one 568 page long fiction book ever released bearing the same name.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Th...93326710/?itm=2


I do not buy the official story and I never will, with or without a new investigation. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe what proven liars and war mongers are telling the public about the events of 9/11. If anything they are to be placed under the eye of every last person for this fact alone, be my guest if you feel otherwise....

You can always keep on eating popcorn while they feed you their faux news through their very owned faux news and media channels.

I'm all for an independent 9/11 commission.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm all for an independent 9/11 commission.

I am in also, but if there is not those ******s did it anyway.

9/11 Truth: Why Won't The Media Show World Trade Center 7?

i can't believe you people think that fire caused that. utterly fucking jokes.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} i can't believe you people think that fire caused that. utterly fucking jokes.

I cant believe people like you consider themselves such experts on what a building should look like after being hit by falling debris burning for over 5 hours.

I also cant believe that you think the government has some super-secret demolition explosives that make absolutely no sound whatsoever. Idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I do not buy the official story and I never will, with or without a new investigation.

so, since you've already ruled out several thousand people - who exactly would you get to conduct this new investigation? obviously all the world-renowned experts in their field aren't good enough for you.

perhaps someone could investigate it right now with the help of youtube? i mean its been good enough for people like you for 7 years.

oh, and anyone that repeatedly uses the term "disinformation" the way you do needs to grow the fuck up.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I cant believe people like you consider themselves such experts on what a building should look like after being hit by falling debris burning for over 5 hours. I also cant believe that you think the government has some super-secret demolition explosives that make absolutely no sound whatsoever. Idiot.

i really don't care what you think, or believe. i'm not an idiot, clearly. you're fucking naive, sir.

the official story is pure, unadulterated bullshit. if you can't see that the thermate sparks flowing out windows -floors and floors below the impact site- or the squibs knocking glass and dust out into the air horizontally, or even the clear dispute with the conservation of motion; or the buildings falling into their footprints, or the molten steel weeks into debris removal; or the puts on airline stock days before, or the mysterious transactions; the closed door commission (with no transcript, bush and cheney lying together in harmony) as suspicious and grounds for deeper research then you're as stupid as i think you are.

..and i think you're pretty stupid, arguing skills aside, you've displayed a true knack for ignorance and close-mindedness.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} i really don't care what you think, or believe. i'm not an idiot, clearly. you're fucking naive, sir.

hahahahahaaha. someone who takes conspiracy sites at the word has the audacity to call ME naive? ha. let's look at your terrible terrible understanding shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} if you can't see that the thermate sparks flowing out windows -floors and floors below the impact site-

how do you know that these are thermate flows and not the flow of aluminium from the aircraft? do you have any idea just how much thermate would be required to produce that amount of molten metal? well, there's an analysis HERE for you

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} or the squibs knocking glass and dust out into the air horizontally

hahaha. if you knew anything about squibs or how explosives worked then you would know that there arent any seen on that day. next.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} or even the clear dispute with the conservation of motion;

ahhhh, you really are someone that swallows things hook line and sinker (hows your zeitgeist research going btw? ) there is no conflict with the conservation of momentum, and why hasn't steven jones had that paper reviewed yet? what's taking so long? surely his science does more than fool gullible people like you?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} or the buildings falling into their footprints,

yeah, if by "footprints" you mean "spewing forth all over the place for a radias of hundreds of yards".

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} or the molten steel weeks into debris removal;

explain why "molten steel" (which you can't prove was found anyway) would be present after a demolition. no other demolition in the history of demolitions has had molten steel afterwards. if you knew anything about thermite you would know that its impossible for this to have occurred from a thermite reaction. honestly, why are you so ignorant of the facts?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} or the puts on airline stock days before,

i haven't looked into these areas, but occrider our renowned economics expert has already torn this argument to shreds in this thread (i believe its this thread), but you guys seem so reluctant to appreciate answers when presented with them.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} the closed door commission (with no transcript, bush and cheney lying together in harmony) as suspicious and grounds for deeper research then you're as stupid as i think you are.

right, so they're really really stupid, yet somehow pulled off the biggest heist in human history. nice logic there, im really glad you and the other internet detectives are here to look out for us.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} ..and i think you're pretty stupid, arguing skills aside, you've displayed a true knack for ignorance and close-mindedness.

yeah, well i think you're a gullible fuckwit with little to no experience in proper academic discourse and/or research, yet with a profound sense of arrogance which leads leads you to believe your internet sleuthing has uncovered problems that thousands of experts didn't quite grasp.

You fit so many on the list its ridiculous

10 characteristics of {b.s.e.} and other juveniles without experience in the real world

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes


1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

so can anybody refute why the WTC fell straight down and not just leaned over to the side where the jet fuel was burning?

btw stop attacking loose change, it's clearly a straw man argument.

"loose change is flawed, thus critical analysis of 9/11 is not needed"
that's
#1. straw man argument
#2. appeal to ignorance/non-sequitur

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.