|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 115)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol! so first cretinrot posts a bunch of names he did not research properly first, to add credence to his wingnut ideas, then when those names turn out to be bogus, he says they dont really matter anyway :haha: oh these guys just get better and better.
credentials might not matter to you cretinrot, but the lack of ANY research done by these people SHOULD be a matter for concern. but i guess you're just happy with names on a page.
but here IS a paper written by structural engineers that HAS received vigorous peer review. funny that they dont think there were any explosives...
source
source |
You should really stop referencing debunking911.com the site mentioned a long time ago was debunked. Think about taking up a new job as well, here is one that fits you well.
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
You should really stop referencing debunking911.com the site mentioned a long time ago was debunked. Think about taking up a new job as well, here is ones that fits you well. |
oh, ok. please refer me to the peer-reviewed engineering critique of the research paper i linked. oh what? you cant!? you dont say!
still got nothing after 6 years :haha: |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
|
that's some high quality h2o |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
So because they are not licensed this means they do not know what they are talking about? |
yes. as far as engineering is concerned, YES!
thats exactly why i don't trust "Mexican" dentists. neither should you.
(sorry Laz);) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yes. as far as engineering is concerned, YES!
thats exactly why i don't trust "Mexican" dentists. neither should you.
(sorry Laz);) |
Don't feel bad... I shudder every time I pass by or see an Asian driving a car. ;) |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
So because they are not licensed this means they do not know what they are talking about?
If you are implying no I find this very hard to believe as I know quite a few individuals with plenty of experience and I will take that over some sort of license or piece of paper any day of the week.
One of my good friends once said "what the hell do I need that ring for" when he was already moving up in the ranks of his engineering position.
My friend was referring to the engineering ring for those wondering to what kind ring I am mentioning above. Some like to show off there credentials as others simply do not. At the end of the day it is whoever will get the job done and get it done right. |
the ring your are speaking of, or iron ring, has nothing to do with being a certified engineer. It is given to those who have graduated from an accredited engineering degree program and who wish to adhere to an obligation binding them to their calling. The iron ring only holds significance in engineering in canada, as the camp does not perform ring ceremonies outside of canada.
Engineering Licenses are much different than the awarding of iron rings. for an iron ring, you have to have gradated, paid 20 dollars, and participated in a ceremony. To be licensed, you have to have completed an accredited enginereing degree, submitted an outline of 4 years of approved engineering experience under a licensed engineer, and complete an ethics exam and pass a test of good character. the licensing bodies are extreemly scrutinous of license applications and very frequently turn down requests for licensure. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
This new half hour documentary is spreading like wildfire on the net at the moment. 9/11 is much more than having licensed engineers peer review papers.
Why on earth did the US let the man who funded the hijackers $100,000 left untouched as if nothing ever happened? Fuk it's not even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report!
I would want to talk to the guy who gave the money to the hijackers but then again if ISI=CIA then this is exactly why it is not mentioned, cannot have any of that now can we.... |
the governments complacency in the events leading up to 9/11 have no bearing on the failure mode of the collapse. i have never once argued for the US gov's innocence in the events. i merely argue on the technical points that crack pot CT'ers are retarded morons who know dick all about structural engineering. theorize all you want about gov conspiracy and involvement in teh attacks, just stop pretending to be forensic structural engineers. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | the governments complacency in the events leading up to 9/11 have no bearing on the failure mode of the collapse. i have never once argued for the US gov's innocence in the events. i merely argue on the technical points that crack pot CT'ers are retarded morons who know dick all about structural engineering. theorize all you want about gov conspiracy and involvement in teh attacks, just stop pretending to be forensic structural engineers. |
Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise.
There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise. |
lots of your fellow crazies are pretending to be engineers. not the least steven jones, who isn't qualified to analyse the collapses, but your ilk keeps referencing him.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus. |
during the past couple of pages we've seen a perfect example of your supposed "research" skills, so forgive us if we dont buy the idea that there is "tons" of "evidence" to support you. im still perplexed with the supposed gains the 911 troothers believe the administration garnered from invading afghanistan with fake intelligence claiming al-qaida involvement in 911. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, |
i believe you mean motive.
what would be the motive? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i believe you mean motive.
what would be the motive? |
well, to pretend 3 years on that iraq had something to do with the attacks (why they blaimed al-qaida in afganistan first im still at a loss to explain) so we could invade and get all that iraqi oil obviously. its far far cheaper to start a war and steal oil than it is simply to buy it you see. and dont forget the patriot act. coz the government's (any govt) goal is to spy on their citizens. coz you know, they get their jollies doing so.
this is what bush et al were willing to risk their lives for. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise.
There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus. |
The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings. |
|
|
|
|
