|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 128)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| quote: | | [b]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN such as cronodevir's statements; he makes assumptions about explosives with no understanding of how explosives (or demolitions for that matter) actually work. |
And you claime that for the first time in human history, an airplane brought a building down.
Without actually haveing and evidence to suggest that, other than a few staged videos by cnn.
Not to mention you were in australia, and i was there, on 9/11. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
And you claime that for the first time in human history, an airplane brought a building down. |
irrelevant. whether it has occured 1000 times or never before.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Without actually haveing and evidence to suggest that, other than a few staged videos by cnn. |
sorry, whats this then?
peer reviewed structural analysis of WTC collapses
published article in "journal of engineering mechanics"
an article from civil engineering
i dont expect you to have the capacity to understand the distinct differences between a youtube video and something that must pass the rigours of scientific peer-review. keep going kid.
| quote: |
Not to mention you were in australia, and i was there, on 9/11. |
right. which is why you're such an expert on the nazi holocaust too? coz you were there...ing hypocrite. get an education you intellectually malnourished waste of space.
| quote: |
CALLING FOR MORE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT of the structural engineer in fire protection design and ``extensive'' additional study of the performance of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, an American Society of Civil Engineers' building performance study will not recommend changes to building codes at this time. Having decided that the plane attacks and subsequent fires doomed the twin towers to destruction, the engineering community is shifting attention to clearing up mysteries swirling around the behavior of nearby buildings damaged by the collapses, to extend lessons learned to general building practice. |
link
now, show me why i should be listening to your ramblings over what the american society of civil engineers happens to think. you know, since you've obviously researched this topic long and hard! :stongue: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
irrelevant. whether it has occured 1000 times or never before.
sorry, whats this then?
peer reviewed structural analysis of WTC collapses
published article in "journal of engineering mechanics"
an article from civil engineering
i dont expect you to have the capacity to understand the distinct differences between a youtube video and something that must pass the rigours of scientific peer-review. keep going kid.
right. which is why you're such an expert on the nazi holocaust too? coz you were there...ing hypocrite. get an education you intellectually malnourished waste of space.
link
now, show me why i should be listening to your ramblings over what the american society of civil engineers happens to think. you know, since you've obviously researched this topic long and hard! :stongue: |
Lol@the source of the links you posted.
A .pdf file..and two join sites...are you secretly trying to get people to join websites? I think you are. LOl. Why must i 'subscribe' to see this 'evidence' you claime to have?
Further more, why don't we go into further detail as to the credability of said sites? LEt me go digg up some info.
Again, you have failed to provide any evidence that on 9/11 two airplanes brought down to massive skyscrapers. Not to mention your claimes contradict nearly every single witness to the event. What they saw, and what the heard.
Must go through rigours scientific review? Which scienctists reviewed this information? As scientists have differing of opinion on this matter. Name some of them, and we will see if they are credable or not.
So far, all you managed to do was post links to a shady join site. Which gives no names or anything. No way to bakcground check the people involved in these articles. |
|
|
| Xevious |
| why can't we all just get along? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Lol@the source of the links you posted.
A .pdf file..and two join sites...are you secretly trying to get people to join websites? I think you are. LOl. Why must i 'subscribe' to see this 'evidence' you claime to have? |
they are unfortunately join sites. not my fault. they were just some i got at random.
serious lol @
yes, its a pdf file from accredited engineers, and reviewed by equally sound science. you laugh at it because you dont understand what it entails. fool.
| quote: |
Further more, why don't we go into further detail as to the credability of said sites? LEt me go digg up some info. |
well, keep digging. let's see, credibility?
| quote: |
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books." |
so, essentially more science between them than your entire foolish movement. ha.
| quote: |
Again, you have failed to provide any evidence that on 9/11 two airplanes brought down to massive skyscrapers. |
hey, dont blame me if PUBLISHED engineering documents are too hard for you to understand. you pretty much misunderstand everything that i've thus posted. you run off with your fallacies and non-sequiturs, and don't even understand the context of the debate, or why your ramblings don't actually make any sense. again, get an education! im serious. your capacity to use and understand the english language is insulting.
| quote: |
Not to mention your claimes contradict nearly every single witness to the event. What they saw, and what the heard. |
hahahahahahahahaaha. see above. you simply dont understand. my claims don't deal with anything of the sort, nor do they contradict anything (except truther's junk science). they are engineering examinations into how and why the buildings fell down. something that your side has STILL failed to do.
| quote: |
Must go through rigours scientific review? Which scienctists reviewed this information? |
any structural engineer that has contributed to the papers. here's a brief overview:
| quote: |
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...ple.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep...en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calenda...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/facul...aculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...e/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354...ategory&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
|
source
| quote: |
As scientists have differing of opinion on this matter. |
no they don't. your side doesn't have a single accredited engineer, and nobody that has produced anything even approaching peer review and been published. hint: steven jones' paper isn't worth the paper its printed on til review.
| quote: |
So far, all you managed to do was post links to a shady join site. Which gives no names or anything. No way to bakcground check the people involved in these articles. |
interesting you seem so skeptical of average, engineering websites yet fail to apply the same levels of doubt to the jokes of research on your 911truth.org sites. haha.
| quote: |
why can't we all just get along? |
because im tired of the people that don't even understand the first thing about having an engaging debate, cant understand basic english, fail to grasp concepts and run around with outlandishly uneducated opinions asking all the wrong questions.
cronodevir (for instance), despite me having tried to explain it to him (at great length i might add) still doesn't understand why asking me for a parallel in history concerning planes crashing into buildings is an idiotic question.
honestly, such wanton ignorance and lack of understanding s me to tears. i put a lot of time and effort into one particular post, hoping that he might learn and amend his non-sequitur ways. alas i am foiled again by children who lack the intellectual capacity to actually debate this particular issue. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
fair points mate. its just that your usage of tags "THE Government" lends itself to a very different interpretation. im sure you'll agree that this misunderstanding is easily possible.
therefore, we can reach a compromise where you can be a little more narrow in your field of vision, and instead of saying "the government", use a particular agency? makes it a little easier to swallow, because i just dont buy the fact that scientists and engineers that are employed by the government are somehow in on the conspiracy.
to be honest, i prefer much narrower topics of discussion. there is so much (mis)information out there that i prefer sticking to things that are irrefutable- ie buildings fell down. because without a plausible argument that shows how demolition is possible, the theory fails pretty badly.
im not that interested in the other parts of the conspiracies to be honest. im not here to debate the administration's possible "aiding and abetting", im more concerned with the theories that revolve around pre-set explosives because the analysis from the truth movement is so very poor. the most ludicrous assumptions are made and accepted with little or no logical inquiry. such as cronodevir's statements; he makes assumptions about explosives with no understanding of how explosives (or demolitions for that matter) actually work. |
How about I be even more specific and just call whatever rogue faction it is the "Shadow Government." That way there will be less confusion for you even though those who carried it out did seem to rely on a lot of unsuspecting but well meaning, honest government employees who were just doing their jobs by performing simulated war games that day. I'll bet the grand majority of the people at the DHS, FEMA, the DoD, NORAD, the FAA, etc., had no clue that someone was going to make one of them go live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_ga...tember_11,_2001
Oh, and the title of this thread is "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" It's quite a broad topic so we're definitely including everything here, circumstantial evidence included. You can start your own thread if you really need to focus. Nobody's going to stop you. ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
How about I be even more specific and just call whatever rogue faction it is the "Shadow Government." |
see, and you wonder why i thought you were a quasi-anarchist :p alright, the shadowy government it is haha.
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
That way there will be less confusion for you even though those who carried it out did seem to rely on a lot of unsuspecting but well meaning, honest government employees who were just doing their jobs by performing simulated war games that day. I'll bet the grand majority of the people at the DHS, FEMA, the DoD, NORAD, the FAA, etc., had no clue that someone was going to make one of them go live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_ga...tember_11,_2001 |
there are no coincidences according to conspiracy theorists! again, its not something i wish to debate, but youre obviously welcome to debate it with any other non-believers that wander in here...
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Oh, and the title of this thread is "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" It's quite a broad topic so we're definitely including everything here, circumstantial evidence included. You can start your own thread if you really need to focus. Nobody's going to stop you. ;) |
yes, very true. the topic however is so very broad that i like a little focus. but that's just me. im sure there are plenty of unsubstantiated connections that can be made about things on sept 11.
i prefer not to delve into inferred meanings (as opposed to cold fact). i suppose this is why i prefer the discussions regarding the bombs in the towers. much less work proving that theory wrong you see ;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no they don't. your side doesn't have a single accredited engineer, and nobody that has produced anything even approaching peer review and been published. hint: steven jones' paper isn't worth the paper its printed on til review.
|
So if someone hasn't written a peer reviewed paper on X, that means that X didn't happen? Is that really the logic that you're using?
Either way, there are a considerable amount of engineers who don't agree with the "official" cover story. Hopefully once more of them come out of the woodwork they will find the courage to write a peer reviewed paper without worrying about some form of reprisal.
Anyway, here are a few that have gone on record:
Engineers and Architects Question the 9/11 Commission Report
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/ |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
So if someone hasn't written a peer reviewed paper on X, that means that X didn't happen? Is that really the logic that you're using? |
not at all. but my position is that those that believe the conspiracy of government so very strongly should explain to me why they feel justified in ignoring all the scientific data examined and prepared by acknowledged experts in the field? i find it really disingenuous to be parroting (not directed at you btw) people like steven jones, but ignoring the WEALTH of data and reviewed research by actual engineers.
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Either way, there are a considerable amount of engineers who don't agree with the "official" cover story. Hopefully once more of them come out of the woodwork they will find the courage to write a peer reviewed paper without worrying about some form of reprisal. |
in the world of academia, it is far scarier to write a paper that your contemporaries will laugh at, than it is to post science that might be unpopular with a transient government.
that second site looks like a nice cut and paste job from others ;) the fact that the frontpage includes things i know not to be true (regarding WTC7) kind've undermines any credibility these "experts" have.
i'll get colonelcrisp to look up these so-called "engineers". the last time he looked at a list of people like this it was quite an embarrassment for culurot. ie members that have been disbarred, or dont actually have the qualifications supposed.
sheesh. i re-read the sidebar regarding WTC7. there are so many lies and untruths in that its disgraceful. could you find me a list of AE members so colonel can look them up? that would be handy :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
see, and you wonder why i thought you were a quasi-anarchist :p alright, the shadowy government it is haha.
|
Oh and it's definitely shadowy! Especially if you include all of the relics (and their friends) who were alumni of the Iran/Contra affair, the BCCI scandal, etc.
| quote: |
i suppose this is why i prefer the discussions regarding the bombs in the towers. much less work proving that theory wrong you see ;) |
What, do you think that they used some sort of Tesla weapon like a directed energy beam or something? Maybe that would explain the cleanup crew's accounts of how many of the huge, steel beams which were pulled from ground zero were bursting into flames upon making contact with air. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
not at all. but my position is that those that believe the conspiracy of government so very strongly should explain to me why they feel justified in ignoring all the scientific data examined and prepared by acknowledged experts in the field? i find it really disingenuous to be parroting (not directed at you btw) people like steven jones, but ignoring the WEALTH of data and reviewed research by actual engineers. |
So how come you're so quick to excuse those aforesaid, acknowledged experts after they omitted certain pieces of data to suit their findings. Data such as that of the molten steel in the basements of all three towers, data such as the acounts of multiple explosions which had been corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses, seismic data, etc. Much of it would probably have altered the conclusions of the glaringly erroneous 9/11 Commission Report had it not been omitted.
| quote: |
in the world of academia, it is far scarier to write a paper that your contemporaries will laugh at, than it is to post science that might be unpopular with a transient government. |
Apparently you haven't read much about it (have you actually studied any of this or do you just read from a script?) but most of the people who have begun to question the official story are vilified, demonized, mindlessly ridiculed for being CT's, etc. It's not about being laughed at, it's about losing their jobs and ruining their careers. Maybe you should go back and reread the article I posted the other day, just a few posts back. To make it easier for you (I'm just assuming that you don't know what I'm talking about), I've even entitled it, "And you wonder why there aren't any major peer reviewed scientific papers floating around? Here's what happens when you question the official story..."
| quote: |
that second site looks like a nice cut and paste job from others ;) the fact that the frontpage includes things i know not to be true (regarding WTC7) kind've undermines any credibility these "experts" have.
i'll get colonelcrisp to look up these so-called "engineers". the last time he looked at a list of people like this it was quite an embarrassment for culurot. ie members that have been disbarred, or dont actually have the qualifications supposed.
sheesh. i re-read the sidebar regarding WTC7. there are so many lies and untruths in that its disgraceful. could you find me a list of AE members so colonel can look them up? that would be handy :) |
Can you talk about them or should I just assume which points you're talking about?
And yes, we're still busy policing the information. It doesn't matter if it's factual or not, it just matters if someone with the right credentials espouses it. And if you do have the right credentials and you speak the wrong way, they'll simply take them away from you or just bar you from practicing/teaching. You just have to love the academic and political bullying and the Orwellian Thought Police ;) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED
Members and movement attacked from several directions
Madison, WI (PRWEB) September 9, 2006 --- Three professors who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been threatened with the loss of their positions for their research and teaching about the events of 9/11. Other attacks are coming from national magazines, such as TIME and U.S. NEWS, which have cover-stories this week suggesting that those who believe 9/11 involved a conspiracy may need psychological counseling. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have published pieces intended to bolster the official account of 9/11.
“This flurry of activity suggests that the government is becoming desperate in its efforts to keep the truth about 9/11 from the American people,” said James H. Fetzer, the founder and co-chair of the society. “But I don’t think it’s working.” Fetzer finds attacks on faculty members, including Kevin Barrett, a humanities instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bill Woodward, a professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, and Steven Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University and the society’s co-chair, especially disturbing.
“According to the government, 9/11 is ‘the pivotal event of the 21st century,’ which changed everything”, he observed. “So it obviously deserves to be studied. College and universities are the institutions that undertake the study of significant historical events. The very idea that faculty should not be studying the events of 9/11 verges on the absurd,” he remarked. “And since the official account-that the events of 9/11 involved 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airliners and perpetrating terrorist acts under control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan-involves a conspiracy, it is impossible to study 9/11 without dealing with conspiracy theories.”
Fetzer thinks the administration wants to suppress serious research on 9/11 because the official account cannot withstand scrutiny. “What the government has told us is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things,” he observed. “Its truth requires violating laws of physics and engineering that cannot be violated and cannot be changed.” He offered a recent piece from NIST that attempts to resolve “frequently asked questions” as an illustration. “We have posted it on our web site at st911.org along with several critiques. I invite anyone to review that exchange to determine if the official account has any basis in science. It does not.”
An article from Popular Mechanics that has been turned into a book doesn’t fare any better, he observed. Since there is no objective foundation for the official account, there is no ground to suggest that skeptics of the official account need psychological counseling. “Rationality is the tendency to accept, reject, and hold-in-suspense beliefs on the basis of logic and evidence,’” Fetzer stated. “Given what we know now, those who continue to defend the government’s account are the ones whose beliefs cannot be justified by logic and evidence, not the critics. The situation abounds with ironies.”
“Sometimes I wonder if the general public realizes the government has been lying to us about 9/11 from the beginning.” He cites the recent acknowledgment from the FBI that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 and the President’s response during a press conference that Saddam Hussein had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only this week a Senate Intelligence Committee report explained that Saddam not only was not collaborating with bin Laden but opposed him. “These were reasons we were given for going to war,” he said. “If the government has been lying about them, we already know the government has been lying about 9/11.”
Scholars, a non-partisan society of students, faculty and experts dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, includes physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and aeronautical engineers among its members. “We have no funds and no budget but are doing this because we believe the American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. Even I find it difficult to believe that the American government could have attacked the American people and killed 3,000 civilians to promote its political agenda, but that is where the evidence leads.”
Contact information:
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(608) 835-2707 (home)
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/...se20060909.html |
|
|
|
|
