|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 129)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
London, England this past weekend.
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
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. |
oh dear. the molten "iron" theory. is there any theory regarding 9/11 you haven't just swallowed? (FYI, if it was a thermite-based reaction that caused the molten METAL (don't say steel because you don't know) it should be molten IRON, not steel. thermite produces iron in its chemical reaction ;)
corroborated by seismic data? oh, you mean the columbia university recordings? which, according to the authors of said study their seismic data is | quote: | | far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462) But the key mistake however, is the idea that any building is demolished by a progressive wave of explosions either working its way up or down a building. |
source
furthermore:
| quote: |
Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.
Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.
The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites.
Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events. |
ibid.
as for the "eyewitnesses", i have no doubt that people heard explosions on the day. im sure people heard lots of them. a big building had been hit by a plane after all. but you cannot jump from that to "oh, it was explosives" without any evidence. you ignore the larger problems concerning logistics etc but ill leave that for now.
really, the bigger problem for you is to explain how explosives are capable of bringing a building down from the top down ??? controlled demolitions ALWAYS, 100% of the time, collapse a building using its own gravity, bottom-up. there's no way you could produce the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 with thermite. its simply not possible. anyone that has looked at the way in which thermite works should know this.
| quote: |
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. |
perhaps, given their belief in unscientfic methods, they deserve to lose their jobs?
yeah, so what? i dont see secret agents busting into his house and gunning him down. this sinister government who is prepared to murder thousands of its own citizens, now seems to let anyone speak their mind on the subject relatively freely. ooooh, spooky!
steven jones has been a noisy critic for a long time. he isnt scared of having his tenure taken away (it already has been) where's his peer review??
| quote: |
Can you talk about them or should I just assume which points you're talking about? |
ok, ill be specific.
AE911truth makes reference to:
4. Squibs or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
-nonsense
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
-there is no way that thermite was used. it cant demolish buildings. no, really.
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
-untrue. jones found sulfur.
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
- i know. imagine knowing that a building which had been on fire for several hours, was bulging and creaking, was gonna collapse! holy bloody obvious batman!
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
-untrue, as witnessed by plenty of firefighters.
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fire.
-wreckage indicates the building did exactly that.
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
-you mean asides from a building that burned, largely unchecked, for around 5 hours??
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
-there is no way in hell a respectable member of the structural engineering community would make such a claim. it makes no sense and anyone with 5 minutes experience would know better. -this is a central reason why i dont buy the official credentials of those supposed listed here. oh, that and last time culorut posted a list it was a bunch of rubbish.
| quote: |
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED |
oh yes, the scholars. the theologians, philosophers. no real engineers tho. lets have a squiz!
| quote: |
I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.
I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.
Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. [b]English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?
So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!
The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.
So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!
So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist, expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.
Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.
Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one. |
http://debunking911.com/jones.htm
anywayz, thats all from me today. i have to go do work. i know its brief and lacks extra detail, but in all honesty im tired of typing lots only to have cretins like cronodevir to miss the point and attack with deviously stupid non sequiturs.
| quote: |
London, England this past weekend... |
i still dont understand how all of these people can think it looks anything like a controlled demolition. if it does, it looks like no controlled demolition ever carried out by anyone, ever.
controlled demo: down=>up
WTC 1 & 2: up=>down
dont know how you guys explain that for us? |
|
|
| culorut |
Fuk PKC is on mission all on his own. I am convinced this mofo is getting paid for all his hard work.
It must suck being the minority when just about everyone else with some common sense knows the official story stinks like aged cow . |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh dear. the molten "iron" theory. is there any theory regarding 9/11 you haven't just swallowed? (FYI, if it was a thermite-based reaction that caused the molten METAL (don't say steel because you don't know) it should be molten IRON, not steel. thermite produces iron in its chemical reaction ;) |
Molten iron theory? I love how you continually attempt to refute what I'm saying while simultaneously displaying your obvious lack of research regarding the facts of the matter. That there was molten metal in the sub-basements of all three buildings is a FACT. It's a FACT that's been corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses including Mark Loizeaux, the owner of Controlled-Demolition, Inc., who was quoted as saying, | quote: | | hot spots of molten steel in the basements...at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels |
There's even a few video's online where a couple of the firefighters talk about it. In another video, some students even confront John Gross of the NIST about it. Of course he vehemently denies having any knowledge pertaining to it, though.
| quote: |
corroborated by seismic data? oh, you mean the columbia university recordings? which, according to the authors of said study their seismic data is
source
furthermore: |
Yeah, the same Columbia University recordings which were used by the NIST. I really wasn't referring to any of Griffin's claims, though. I was referring to the huge seismic spikes which marked the beginning of each of the Twin Tower's collapses. The ones that the NIST weren't really able to explain and the same ones that seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam (Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research) said were still being investigated.
| quote: |
ibid.
as for the "eyewitnesses", i have no doubt that people heard explosions on the day. im sure people heard lots of them. a big building had been hit by a plane after all. but you cannot jump from that to "oh, it was explosives" without any evidence. you ignore the larger problems concerning logistics etc but ill leave that for now. |
The planes exploded upon their initial contact with the buildings and the jet fuel that didn't explode in the air burned off in minutes. That wouldn't account for the numerous BIG BANGS and loud crackles which were heard preceding the collapses. One eyewitness is on record (via a live news broadcast from that day) saying that it sounded like strings of "black cat fireworks" going off - which is the same sound that you'd hear when demolition charges are synchronously set off. I've already posted a plethora of videos where you can hear exactly the same thing. Perhaps you just ignored them like everything else.
| quote: |
really, the bigger problem for you is to explain how explosives are capable of bringing a building down from the top down ??? controlled demolitions ALWAYS, 100% of the time, collapse a building using its own gravity, bottom-up. there's no way you could produce the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 with thermite. its simply not possible. anyone that has looked at the way in which thermite works should know this. |
It's called a Controlled Progressive Collapse. Always, 100% of the time? How about the Biltmore Hotel in Oklahoma City?
| quote: |
perhaps, given their belief in unscientfic methods, they deserve to lose their jobs? |
Their belief in unscientific methods? LMAO
It's cool how you can twist it around to demonize the ones who are diligently searching for the truth using scientific, critical thinking skills while the coverup artists get a free pass.
| quote: |
yeah, so what? i dont see secret agents busting into his house and gunning him down. this sinister government who is prepared to murder thousands of its own citizens, now seems to let anyone speak their mind on the subject relatively freely. ooooh, spooky!
steven jones has been a noisy critic for a long time. he isnt scared of having his tenure taken away (it already has been) where's his peer review?? |
There you go with your logical fallacies. Ad hominems, Poisoning the Well, the Bandwagon Fallacy, Non Sequiturs, etc. It's really been a trip trying to get through to you.
| quote: |
ok, ill be specific.
AE911truth makes reference to:
4. Squibs or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
-nonsense
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
-there is no way that thermite was used. it cant demolish buildings. no, really.
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
-untrue. jones found sulfur.
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
- i know. imagine knowing that a building which had been on fire for several hours, was bulging and creaking, was gonna collapse! holy bloody obvious batman!
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
-untrue, as witnessed by plenty of firefighters.
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fire.
-wreckage indicates the building did exactly that.
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
-you mean asides from a building that burned, largely unchecked, for around 5 hours??
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
-there is no way in hell a respectable member of the structural engineering community would make such a claim. it makes no sense and anyone with 5 minutes experience would know better. -this is a central reason why i dont buy the official credentials of those supposed listed here. oh, that and last time culorut posted a list it was a bunch of rubbish.
oh yes, the scholars. the theologians, philosophers. no real engineers tho. lets have a squiz!
http://debunking911.com/jones.htm
anywayz, thats all from me today. i have to go do work. i know its brief and lacks extra detail, but in all honesty im tired of typing lots only to have cretins like cronodevir to miss the point and attack with deviously stupid non sequiturs.
i still dont understand how all of these people can think it looks anything like a controlled demolition. if it does, it looks like no controlled demolition ever carried out by anyone, ever.
controlled demo: down=>up
WTC 1 & 2: up=>down
dont know how you guys explain that for us? |
You obviously haven't really researched any of this.
I think that your mind was made up the moment the government told you what happened.
Anyway, I've already given you a link to a list of engineers but just like the rest of the evidence that points to government complicity, you've apparently chosen to ignore it.
| quote: |
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect B. Arch.
S.F. Bay Area, CA
Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA
Bruce Richey, AIA, Architect
Ashland, Oregon
Alan S. Glassman, M. Arch., Associate AIA, CSI, SA, Architectural Re *
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA
Am Amnusydcjkorn, B. I.Arch, Designer *
Berkeley, CA
Christian Mungenast, AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA
Andrew McClure, B.Arch VPI&SU B.Arch VPI&SU
Raleigh, NC
David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Arnold A. Valdez, M.Arch, Designer/Planner *
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Dennis Holloway, Architect, Architect *
Rio Rancho, NM
Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA
Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA
Chris Jung B. Arch.
Berkeley, CA
Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY
Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA
Elwin Wong B. Arch - Cal Berkeley
Oakland, CA
James Martin Tomlin, Architect B.Arch, 1988, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Fresno, CA
Felix Goebel, Dipl. Ing (Architektur)
Oakland, CA
Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA
Francisco A. Planes, Architectural Consultant, Assoc., A.I.A.
B.S. Architecture, CCNY-CUNY
Bloomfield, NJ
Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg, Florida
Henri Tso B. Arch.
Walnut Creek, CA
Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA
Jan Leits, B. Arch.
Berkeley, CA
John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Jeffrey Tam B. Arch
Oakland, CA
John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA
Justin Feider, Intern Architect *
Denver, Colorado
John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Karlene Gullone B. Arch
San Francisco, CA
Michael E. Balay, Architect
Fishers, Indiana
Ken Hutchinson B. Arch.
Eugene, OR
Michael C. Coffey, AIA, Architect *
New York, NY
Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner M. Arch
San Francisco, CA
Mickey Propadovich, Architect *
Evanston, Illinois
Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Mike Swenson, PhD., Structural Engineer *
Structural Engineering - Florida A&M University
Tampa, Florida
Mojgan Saberi, BS Arch., Designer
Oakland, CA
Nelson L Johnson, Architect & Civil Engineer
MArch Columbia
San Francisco, CA
Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA
Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY
Reed Simpson, M. Arch. Associate AIA *
Master of Architecture University of Kan
Overland Park, Kansas
Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA
Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist
Lake Geneva, WI
Roger vanFrank, Architect *
Salt Lake City, UT
Tim Clark B. Arch
Albany, CA
Ronald F. Avery, Architect *
Seguin, Texas
Travis Van Brasch, Associate AIA, Design Principal
San Francisco, CA
Wendy Sitler, Designer B. Arch
Berkeley, CA
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Barry K. Miller, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Hinsdale, NY
Andrew Griffith, Engineering * B.S., Chemical Engineering
Seattle, WA
Cameron Porter, PhD, Mechanical Engineer *
Boston, Massachusetts
Anthony Szamboti, BSME, Mechanical Engineering
Blackwood, NJ
Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural
Houston, Texas
Arnold B. Walker, Design Engineer, Retired *
BS Tool & Manufacturing Technology BYU
Sandy, UT
Chester W. Gearhart, P.E., Retired
B.S. Civil Engineering, Univ of Missouri
Kansas City, MO
Bob McGee, Engineer *
Green Bay, WI
Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer
West Bend, WI
Bradley Pattee, Engineering Staff *
Rochester, NY
Derek Johnson, E.I.T., C.W.I. B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Marlin, Texas
David C. Avina, Engineer BSME
Bay St. Louis, MS
J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA
David Gregg, Ph.D., Chemical Engineer
Moraga, California
James R. Carr, Ph.D., P.E.(geological engineering,, Professor, Ge
Reno, Nevada
David Wilkins, Electrical Engineer *
San Jose, CA
John Franklin, P.E. *
Lubec, ME
Edwin Michael Taylor, E.I.T., Engineering Consultant
Hampton, VA
John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Gene Robinson, B.S. Industrial Engineer non-licensed *
Savannah, Georgia
Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer
Thousand Oaks, CA
Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL
Kenneth Wrenn, P.E. * B.S., Civil Engineering, NCSU
Durham, NC
Henry Rozumski, Aerospace Engineer/ Analyst *
Aiea, HI
Michael E. Stephens, PE BS, Geological Engineering
Welling, OK
Jack Meagher, BSNE, Nuclear Engineer
Peterborough, NH
Mitchell Scott Stein, P.E. M.S. Civil Engg, Univ of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Con *
Austin, TX
Peter Gibbons, P.E., Professional Engineer *
Mccausland,, Iowa
James R. Northrup, Sr., Welding Engineer & Journeyman Steamfitter
Ypsilanti, MI
Peter D. Morse, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Tucson, Arizona
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington, DC
Richard J. Snider, P.E. BSEE, University of Texas, Austin
Dallas, Dripping Springs, TX
Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical *
Indianapolis, Indiana
Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA
Jeff Rogers, MSME, Engineer *
Woodland Park, CO
Ron Paul LeBlanc, PE, Engineer
Firestone, CO
John J. Crawford, Engineering Consultant * BSE
Opelika, AL
Steven Craig Brantingham, P.E.
B.S., ChemE, U. of Arkansas Fayetteville
Cypress, TX
John P Machado, other BSEE UMass
North Versailles, PA
Steven Reiser, Chemical Engineer
Westminster, CO
John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
Tim Rohach, P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME
Sugar Land, Texas
John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA
William D. Taylor, P.E.
B.S. Engineering
Tequesta, FL
John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer *
Eureka, CA
Jon Marino, BSCE, EIT, Design Engineer
Phoenix, AZ
Keith E. Fleming, Engineering Staff * B.S., Mechanical Engineering
Auburn, GA
Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Mellon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA
Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN
Michel A. Thomet, Ph.D., Electrical Engineer
Ph.D.,E.E., Carnegie-Mellon, Pittsburgh,
Lafayette, CA
Mike Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
Tempe, AZ
Mike Schmidt, BSGE, Project Manager
Chicago, IL
Paul Briggs, Mechanical Engineer Common, Quindaro Plant
B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Kansas State
Kansas City, KS
Rich McCampbell, BS ChemE *
Boston, MA
Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural /
San Diego, California
Richard Besco, Engineering Staff *
San Luis Obispo, CA
Robert Hulsart, Computer Engineer
Franklin Square, NY
Robert Poltz, Reliablity Engineering Consultant * MSE/BSE
Los Angeles, California
Robert Charles Terhune, none
B.S., Electrical Engineering, Univ. NV,
Sparks, NV
Roger Twede, Engineering Staff
Meridian, ID
Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff *
Fort Worth, Texas
Sebastian Canaday, Engineer Staff
B.S.,Engineering, Colo. School of Mines
Boulder, CO
Steven Eugene Ramsey, Author, Publisher, Filmmaker *
B.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. Microbiology
Austin, Texas
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA
Terry Allen, Electronics Engineer *
Sun Valley, CA
Victor Connor, Retired Engineer from IBM
MS in Electrical and Computer Engineerin
Normal, IL
Warren J. Raftshol *
Suttons Bay, MI
William Edward Parker, Retired Engineer
Louisville, KY
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals
A.J. James Shieck, Architectural Technologist *
Dilp Tech
Vancouver, BC – Canada Brian McHugh, BSc PgD, Consultant Engineer
Glasgow, UK – Scotland
David Leifer, Registered Architect
B.Sc, B.Arch, M.Ed, Ph.D
Sydney, New South Wales – Australia David Quinn, M.Arch, Intern Architect *
Halifax, NS – Canada
Doug Plumb
Toronto, ON – Canada Enzo Valenzetti, Civil Engineer *
Leuven, Brussels – Belgium
Gregory Urich, B.S.E.E, Sofware Engineering Consultant *
Lund, Skĺne – Sweden
Hadi Izadi, Ph.D., Student M.A.Sc., B.A.Sc.
Vancouver, BC – Canada
Jasper Tomlinson, MA(Oxon) CEnv MCIWEM, Environmental and Water Reso *
London Uk, London – UK
Joe Rowling, Architectural staff
London, London – UK
John L. Bursill, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics
Sydney, NSW – Australia
John Fisher, quantity surveyor /construction consultant *
Liverpool, merseyside uk – UK
Kees van der Bent, Designer * B.Sc., Computer Science, The Hague NL
Utrecht, Utrecht – Netherlands
Lydia A. Browne, M. Arch, Architectural Consultant, Strategy *
London, (formally of Cincinnati, OH) – United Kingdom
Magnus Thompson, Engineering Staff *
Winnipeg, Manitoba – Canada
Michael A. Rose, B Arch, Architect (Retired) *
Auckland, AK – New Zealand
Mohsin Drabu, Student *
London, London – UK
Philip Kienholz, B. Arch., NWTAA, PMP, Architect *
Hay River, NT – Canada
Robert Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer
Vancouver, BC – Canada
|
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Molten iron theory? I love how you continually attempt to refute what I'm saying while simultaneously displaying your obvious lack of research regarding the facts of the matter. That there was molten metal in the sub-basements of all three buildings is a FACT. It's a FACT that's been corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses including Mark Loizeaux, the owner of Controlled-Demolition, Inc., who was quoted as saying,
There's even a few video's online where a couple of the firefighters talk about it. In another video, some students even confront John Gross of the NIST about it. Of course he vehemently denies having any knowledge about it, though.
|
you miss my point. my point is that a- nobody can tell what the molten metal was as nobody tested it. if it was molten STEEL then it wasnt a thermite reaction. in any case, thermite is an incindiary and not used in demolitions. it is far too unpredictable and cant make the "cuts" that have been bandied around in photos after the fact. thermite is not a viable theory as there is no way you could get the TONS (yes tons) of thermite into the building in the first place. let alone remove all the concrete reinforcing the columns (thermite needs direct contact to work). the thermite theory is one of the easier ones to disprove, so much so that super-secret-military thermite has been suggested in this here thread to make up for thermite's natural inability to bring down buildings.
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Yeah, the same Columbia University recordings which were used by the NIST. I really wasn't referring to any of Griffin's claims, though. I was referring to the huge seismic spikes which marked the beginning of each of the Twin Tower's collapses. The ones that the NIST weren't really able to explain and the same ones that seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam (Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research) said were still being investigated. |
ive already stated that the columbia authors said their findings arent nearly accurate enough to be used in this way, why do you continue?
| quote: |
The planes exploded upon initial contact wityh the buildings and the jet fuel burned off in minutes. That wouldn't account for the numerous BIG BANGS and loud crackles which were heard preceding the collapses. One eyewitness is on record (via a live news broadcast from that day) saying that it sounded like strings of "black cats" going off.
|
i am not all that concerned with random eye-witnesses. unless they are witnessing something common (like a plane hitting a pentagonally-shaped building). people's eyes and ears are fooled all the time. its interesting that so many of the 911 CTs are born out of off-hand comments made that day, but completely ignore plausible explanations once further information is released. so, what youre saying is that the government used both traditional, RDX-like cutter charges as well as thermite? what exactly was the thermite for? where did all the demolition wire get hidden? (note, remote controlled charges cannot have been used. asked colonelcrisp about that).
if i am incorrect then i'll accept that. but that still looks to be a collapse that began at the bottom. its interesting you used that website too, theres a piece in it on the largest building ever done, and includes the prep work time (which was MONTHS, full-time). a larger building like the WTCs wouldve taken even longer. how do you explain that? how did the government manage it? and please dont mention the "power-downs" haha. either way, the WTCs werent a controlled progressive collapse in any case, unless of course you think CPC means the top section of a building breaks off and "rides" the remainder all the way down. quite lucky that the government placed those charges in exactly the right spot where the planes hit huh?
| quote: |
Their belief in unscientific methods? LMAO
It's cool how you can twist it around to demonize the ones who are diligently searching for the truth using scientific, critical thinking skills while the coverup artists get a free pass. |
i am not twisting anything. scientific methods (have you even read jones' paper?) are those that satisfy peer-review. its part and parcel of presenting scientific evidence. jones for instance, makes completely unsubstantiated assumptions regarding something (collapsing buildings) within which he is not qualified to make. im sorry, but there has yet to be a proper study from your side of the fence. any site that repeats known fallacies like "oh, no building has fallen like this before" or "gee, WTC7 fell without a scratch" isnt utilising unscientific methods. and i have seen the same lies on each and every website (and ive visited a fair few)
| quote: |
There you go with your logical fallacies. Ad hominems, Poisoning the Well, the Bandwagon Fallacy, Non Sequiturs, etc. It's really been a trip trying to get through to you. |
attacking steven jones for not having produced a peer-reviewed paper when he is obviously not fearful of losing anything is not an ad hominem.
pointing out that the government hasnt murdered any of these "truth seekers" because they have stumbled upon the truth isnt convincing, and neither is it a non sequitur.
eh, wheres the bandwagon fallacy???
| quote: |
You obviously haven't really researched any of this.
I think that your mind was made up the moment the government told you what happened. |
wrong, and wrong. the difference between my research and yours is that 911 truth sites are not the only once i have visited to view both sides of the story. every piece of "evidence" presented (a lot factually incorrect) i have found corresponding arguments that are far far more plausible, without the disingenuous (probably dishonest) editing of said facts. ie, the photos you see on CT sites of building 7, versus the interviews with firemen that actually fought the raging infero telling it how it was. i think you have certainly done your research, but its pretty obvious to me you havent approached the questions from either side, which is what should be done at the outset. FYI, i was pretty convinced of a lot of this stuff after ogv5150 sent me some links and videos. which is where my interest started. pretty compelling evidence to some ignorant like myself at the time. luckily for me other people started putting these lies into their proper context.
| quote: |
Anyway, I've already given you a link to a list of engineers but just like the rest of the evidence that points to government complicity, you've apparently chosen to ignore it. |
thanks for that. ive sent colonelcrisp a PM, hopefully he'll be here to undermine this list of supposed experts soon :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic. Adapted from Give Up Blog's post with permission. |
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you miss my point. my point is that a- nobody can tell what the molten metal was as nobody tested it. if it was molten STEEL then it wasnt a thermite reaction. in any case, thermite is an incindiary and not used in demolitions. it is far too unpredictable and cant make the "cuts" that have been bandied around in photos after the fact. thermite is not a viable theory as there is no way you could get the TONS (yes tons) of thermite into the building in the first place. let alone remove all the concrete reinforcing the columns (thermite needs direct contact to work). the thermite theory is one of the easier ones to disprove, so much so that super-secret-military thermite has been suggested in this here thread to make up for thermite's natural inability to bring down buildings.
ive already stated that the columbia authors said their findings arent nearly accurate enough to be used in this way, why do you continue?
i am not all that concerned with random eye-witnesses. unless they are witnessing something common (like a plane hitting a pentagonally-shaped building). people's eyes and ears are fooled all the time. its interesting that so many of the 911 CTs are born out of off-hand comments made that day, but completely ignore plausible explanations once further information is released. so, what youre saying is that the government used both traditional, RDX-like cutter charges as well as thermite? what exactly was the thermite for? where did all the demolition wire get hidden? (note, remote controlled charges cannot have been used. asked colonelcrisp about that).
if i am incorrect then i'll accept that. but that still looks to be a collapse that began at the bottom. its interesting you used that website too, theres a piece in it on the largest building ever done, and includes the prep work time (which was MONTHS, full-time). a larger building like the WTCs wouldve taken even longer. how do you explain that? how did the government manage it? and please dont mention the "power-downs" haha. either way, the WTCs werent a controlled progressive collapse in any case, unless of course you think CPC means the top section of a building breaks off and "rides" the remainder all the way down. quite lucky that the government placed those charges in exactly the right spot where the planes hit huh?
i am not twisting anything. scientific methods (have you even read jones' paper?) are those that satisfy peer-review. its part and parcel of presenting scientific evidence. jones for instance, makes completely unsubstantiated assumptions regarding something (collapsing buildings) within which he is not qualified to make. im sorry, but there has yet to be a proper study from your side of the fence. any site that repeats known fallacies like "oh, no building has fallen like this before" or "gee, WTC7 fell without a scratch" isnt utilising unscientific methods. and i have seen the same lies on each and every website (and ive visited a fair few)
attacking steven jones for not having produced a peer-reviewed paper when he is obviously not fearful of losing anything is not an ad hominem.
pointing out that the government hasnt murdered any of these "truth seekers" because they have stumbled upon the truth isnt convincing, and neither is it a non sequitur.
eh, wheres the bandwagon fallacy???
wrong, and wrong. the difference between my research and yours is that 911 truth sites are not the only once i have visited to view both sides of the story. every piece of "evidence" presented (a lot factually incorrect) i have found corresponding arguments that are far far more plausible, without the disingenuous (probably dishonest) editing of said facts. ie, the photos you see on CT sites of building 7, versus the interviews with firemen that actually fought the raging infero telling it how it was. i think you have certainly done your research, but its pretty obvious to me you havent approached the questions from either side, which is what should be done at the outset. FYI, i was pretty convinced of a lot of this stuff after ogv5150 sent me some links and videos. which is where my interest started. pretty compelling evidence to some ignorant like myself at the time. luckily for me other people started putting these lies into their proper context.
thanks for that. ive sent colonelcrisp a PM, hopefully he'll be here to undermine this list of supposed experts soon :) |
Well, I'm definitely not conceding anything but I will say that it's definitely quite difficult trying to investigate something when at every turn there is another coverup agent trying to either further obfuscate the facts or deliberately mislead in some way.
If it was in fact a rogue faction within the upper echelons of our Federal Government (CIA black budgeted?) then they probably would have been able to get ahold of whatever type of military grade incendiaries or cutting charges (like what Spectre Enterprises has patented) or better. You do realize that military technology is several decades ahead of civilian technology, don't you?
And why do you always have to make assumptions and/or assertions about me? (Why am I even a topic in your discussion?) Do you actually have some sort of knowledge about what web sites I've visited? I doubt it but wouldn't really be surprised. I've been looking into this for several years and even though I've only more recently become enthralled with this whole conspiracy, I have been sure to look at all sides of the equation. Crap, I even delved though the 9/11 Commission report but had to let it go after I realized how much of a waste of taxpayer dollars the Keane-Zelikow Commission really was. I can't even imagine what would have become of the "official investigation" if Kissinger & Associates had taken the helm like they had originally wanted before the 9/11 widows made such a fuss about his conflict of interest in regards to having the bin Laden family as clients. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
You definitely do it well ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, I'm definitely not conceding anything but I will say that it's definitely quite difficult trying to investigate something when at every turn there is another coverup agent trying to either further obfuscate the facts or deliberately mislead in some way. |
we'll have to disagree there. i think the facts (as much as is possible) have been pretty obviously revealed. not necessarily by the administration, but by those experts in the field.
| quote: |
If it was in fact a rogue faction within the upper echelons of our Federal Government (CIA black budgeted?) then they probably would have been able to get ahold of whatever type of military grade incendiaries or cutting charges (like what Spectre Enterprises has patented) or better. You do realize that military technology is several decades ahead of civilian technology, don't you? |
very true. the problem being that you cant produce this as ANY kind of evidence. because it isn't evidence. just because the theory requires a topsecret tuhs far unknown incendiary does not actually mean they do exist. the super-secret thermate-esque stuff still doesn't answer all the other problems of the demo theory, so its a moot point.
| quote: |
And why do you always have to make assumptions and/or assertions about me? (Why am I even a topic in your discussion?) |
you're the one who accused me of doing no research on the matter. whats good for the goose... ;)
| quote: |
Do you actually have some sort of knowledge about what web sites I've visited? |
given that you've made reference to unsubstantiated theories of doubt well known on so-called "debunking" sites, then yeah, i get the feeling that you haven't really assessed the answers to the questions raised on 911.org etc. perhaps i am wrong. maybe im giving you too much credit, because i dont see how an obviously well-read and intelligent human being could fall victim to some of these outlandish claims unless (like me back in 2003) they hadnt received a crash course in logical answers.
| quote: |
I've been looking into this for several years and even though I've only more recently become enthralled with this whole conspiracy, I've been sure to look at all sides of the equation. Crap, I even delved though the 9/11 Commission report but had to let it go after I realized how much of a waste of taxpayer dollars the Keane-Zelikow Commission was. |
i stopped reading the report coz it was pretty damned boring ;)
but, if youre bored. here's one site. its reasonably short and succinct, no ads or anything for sale. a very nice critique of (amongst other things) dr steven jones.
good science and 9/11 demolition theories
obviously you dont have to read any of it, but i would honestly like your opinion on the paper if you ever have the time :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
we'll have to disagree there. i think the facts (as much as is possible) have been pretty obviously revealed. not necessarily by the administration, but by those experts in the field.
very true. the problem being that you cant produce this as ANY kind of evidence. because it isn't evidence. just because the theory requires a topsecret tuhs far unknown incendiary does not actually mean they do exist. the super-secret thermate-esque stuff still doesn't answer all the other problems of the demo theory, so its a moot point.
you're the one who accused me of doing no research on the matter. whats good for the goose... ;)
given that you've made reference to unsubstantiated theories of doubt well known on so-called "debunking" sites, then yeah, i get the feeling that you haven't really assessed the answers to the questions raised on 911.org etc. perhaps i am wrong. maybe im giving you too much credit, because i dont see how an obviously well-read and intelligent human being could fall victim to some of these outlandish claims unless (like me back in 2003) they hadnt received a crash course in logical answers.
i stopped reading the report coz it was pretty damned boring ;)
but, if youre bored. here's one site. its reasonably short and succinct, no ads or anything for sale. a very nice critique of (amongst other things) dr steven jones.
good science and 9/11 demolition theories
obviously you dont have to read any of it, but i would honestly like your opinion on the paper if you ever have the time :) |
That's where you're wrong and that's why I keep asking you if you've actually researched this. I keep pointing to details which you seem to be oblivious to and it's gotten to the point that it's almost as though you don't want to see them at all but would rather narrow the argument down to some unarguable specific.
Hey, if they hadn't carted away so much of the evidence so quickly we would all undoubtedly know a lot more about what really happened. But it's just another coincidence that they did that, right? It's another coincidence that all of the trucks which hauled away the steel were fitted with GPS tracking devices so that none of the steel would have slipped through the coverup cracks.
Those prototypical demolition charges do exist and that's much of the point. The military has them, they're just not commercially available. And while I do glean bits and pieces of information wherever I can, I'm definitely not referencing random websites as an original, authoritative source.
If you want to start talking about outlandish claims, why don't we start with those made by the government? How about the nineteen hijackers of which six are still alive and residing in the Middle East? How about a plastic passport that survived a fiery ball of jet fuel or an alleged group of fanatical, fundamentalist Muslims who behave very un-Muslim-like by dating strippers and having a debaucherous ole' time partying with cocaine and alcohol? How about the fact that two of them trained at U.S. Military facilities? I think I should just start to make a list because there are literally hundreds of such anomalies that are begging to be investigated.
But they didn't want an investigation to begin with so of course they're going to try and dissuade anyone else from doing it. That's too bad though because I'm not going to rest until I find out everything and I know that there are many other's who feel the same.
"You'd think with such a major catastrophic event we'd be a little bit closer, uh, to the truth BUT WE'RE STILL NOT..."
- April Gallop, Pentagon Attack Survivor |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
That's where you're wrong and that's why I keep asking you if you've actually researched this. I keep pointing to details which you seem to be oblivious to and it's gotten to the point that it's almost as though you don't want to see them at all but would rather narrow the argument down to some unarguable specific. |
thats funny, coz i feel the same way about you! :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Hey, if they hadn't carted away so much of the evidence so quickly we would all undoubtedly know a lot more about what really happened. But it's just another coincidence that they did that, right? It's another coincidence that all of the trucks which hauled away the steel were fitted with GPS tracking devices so that none of the steel would have slipped through the coverup cracks. |
this is another often-repeated argument for which i have been able to find no evidence of. ive only been able to find unsubstantiated commentary on CT sites. check out statement number 6 in this article from a demolition's firm that deals directly with the chain of evidence.
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPS...rd%208-8-06.pdf ]link[/URL]
| quote: |
Those prototypical demolition charges do exist and that's much of the point. The military has them, they're just not commercially available. And while I do glean bits and pieces of information wherever I can, I'm definitely not referencing random websites as an original, authoritative source. |
do they? how come youre privvy to the secret defence labs? either way, the fact is you cant prove they were used, so with no proof im still wondering why we are considering them at all?
| quote: |
How about the nineteen hijackers of which six are still alive and residing in the Middle East? |
oh, couldnt be a case of stolen identity could it? seriously, why is the claim always "conspiracy" ahead of the much more likely explanation? terrorists wouldnt conceal their true identities if possible of course. the passenger manifests with these names- where did they come from? someone caught those planes with those details. end of story.
| quote: |
How about a plastic passport that survived a ball of jet fuel |
no coincidences in CT land.
| quote: |
or an alleged group of fanatical, fundamentalist Muslims who behave very un-Muslim-like by dating strippers and having a debaucherous ole' time partying with cocaine and alcohol? |
??
| quote: |
How about the fact that two of them trained at U.S. Military facilities? |
i am not familiar with that particular theory. then again, i people criticise popular mechanics because one staff member is the third cousin twice removed of george bush.
| quote: |
I think I should just start to make a list because there are literally hundreds of such anomalies that are begging to be investigated. |
anomalies arent evidence. like ive said before, arguments to create doubt do not actually provide anything substantial in its place.
the funny thing is, i still havent seen any of these anomalies connected together to make one cohesive story. most of the anomalies demand the most ridiculous answers, such as a circling plane dumped plane parts (that just happened to match the plane that disappeared near the pentagon) over the pentagon lawn to make it look like a plane hit. hahahahaha. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thats funny, coz i feel the same way about you! :p |
and you say this just two posts after you said,
| quote: | | i think you have certainly done your research |
but whatever, no biggie.
| quote: | this is another often-repeated argument for which i have been able to find no evidence of. ive only been able to find unsubstantiated commentary on CT sites. check out statement number 6 in this article from a demolition's firm that deals directly with the chain of evidence.
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPS...rd%208-8-06.pdf ]link[/URL] |
There's a wonderful thing I found that's called a search engine. You should use it sometime ;)
http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/ar...eID=1&sk=&date=
| quote: |
do they? how come youre privvy to the secret defence labs? either way, the fact is you cant prove they were used, so with no proof im still wondering why we are considering them at all? |
Well, mainly because that's one of the only rational explanations behind how or why the towers could have collapsed at nearly freefall speed. Since I doubt that they defied the laws of physics, I'd say it would have to be either that or some sort of directed energy weapon. The FBI initially stated that they thought that there was an explosives filled van which was detonated in the basement - but that's a whole another story. I think I'll stick to arguing about demolition charges for now. ;)
| quote: | | oh, couldnt be a case of stolen identity could it? seriously, why is the claim always "conspiracy" ahead of the much more likely explanation? terrorists wouldnt conceal their true identities if possible of course. the passenger manifests with these names- where did they come from? someone caught those planes with those details. end of story. |
FBI Director Robert Mueller made that acknowledgement a while ago.
These guys were both known and watched by several intelligence agencies both here and abroad. If you had followed the story from the beginning you probably would have known that.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure it out ;)
http://www.breakfornews.com/Mohammed-Atta.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11358484
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../29/12430.shtml
| quote: |
i am not familiar with that particular theory. then again, i people criticise popular mechanics because one staff member is the third cousin twice removed of george bush. |
I thought that you said you researched this?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...TE=Sep+15,+2001
| quote: |
anomalies arent evidence. like ive said before, arguments to create doubt do not actually provide anything substantial in its place.
the funny thing is, i still havent seen any of these anomalies connected together to make one cohesive story. most of the anomalies demand the most ridiculous answers, such as a circling plane dumped plane parts (that just happened to match the plane that disappeared near the pentagon) over the pentagon lawn to make it look like a plane hit. hahahahaha. |
LMAO! The REALLY funny thing is, you seem to use misinformation even when you assert that you can't put the anomalies together. The plane parts at the Pentagon didn't even match the 737 that allegedly hit it and I had never even heard that the circling C-130 had dumped anything. Are you making that up or did you actually read that? |
|
|
|
|
