|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 130)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
| trancer-x for your sake i really hope you double checked the credentials of all those engineers and architects you posted because i am going to start chipping away at that list tonight...... i already did it once..... and the results were not shocking. 95% of them were not liscenced anywhere in the US......... |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
trancer-x for your sake i really hope you double checked the credentials of all those engineers and architects you posted because i am going to start chipping away at that list tonight...... i already did it once..... and the results were not shocking. 95% of them were not liscenced anywhere in the US......... |
Who gives a fuk if they are licensed or not?
I bet they still know what they are talking about and some even have much more experience then other engineers with licenses who are fresh out of school.
I am also willing to bet that if you decided to pull your head out of your ass and speak the truth about 9/11 that you would never get a "legitimate" job with the big boys. You would have your license revoked much like what has happened to those who have come forth and spoken the truth about 9/11. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Trolls know more than an engineer or other similar professional.
They never offer objective rhetoric. Only inane babble and ad hominem attacks with a little character assassination thrown in for good measure.
But they know what they talk about because Langley says they do. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
and you say this just two posts after you said,
but whatever, no biggie. |
yeah, you've done a lot of research. but what seems from one particular angle only. that's what i meant ;)
whats your point? I dont see the issue here.
| quote: |
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. ;) |
haha. rational explanation? you're inventing technology to suit your theory, how is that even remotely rational? "defied the laws of physics". -first off, that's yet another misnomer bandied around. To be honest the technical math is beyond me (and i suspect you too) but until jone's paper gets peer review then you have no credible scientific study with which to substantiate your claims. and seriously LOL at energy weapon!
no, i said i took particular interest in certain parts of the story; mostly the illogical and scientifcally unsupported "bombs in towers" arguments. and i stated as much; my research centres around this central theme (though i will pass commentary on other things that just fail the common sense test). i am not interested in the "larger picture" because it requires far far too much interpretation, and CTs see government evil everywhere. i have neither the time nor the inclination to follow up every red herring thrown up by a paranoid blogger. it is far easier to investigate something like the supposed bombs.
| quote: |
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? |
peer reviewed engineering papers do not qualify as "misinformation". pointing out facts like fire fighter interviews concerning the state of WTC7 is not misinformation. drawing attention to the SERIOUS logistical problems with the controlled demolition hypothesis is not misinformation. I basically mention these types of issues because I am yet to see plausible answers to them, or explain why they are ignored by the CTs.
any theory that degenerates into arguments for secret energy weapons, or imaginery "super thermate" illustrates the weakness in plausible scientific analysis. You talk about "breaking the laws of physics" yet you're still free to break the laws of common sense or acceptable rationality by inventing necessary technology?
| quote: |
Who gives a fuk if they are licensed or not? |
because if theyre not registered you cannot possibly verify the veracity of their qualifications. meaning they are just random names on a page. you believe they know what they are talking about, whereas colonel and i would prefer a little proof. hey, like a paper written by them and reviewed by their peers! lol. i dont understand the logic of someone that would defend a list of names that (as far as we know) haven't produced any articles on the subject, if you can't even verify their qualifications at the same time? that's just dumb.
| quote: |
I bet they still know what they are talking about and some even have much more experience then other engineers with licenses who are fresh out of school. |
excuse me if your "bet" isn't good enough for the rest of us. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | because if theyre not registered you cannot possibly verify the veracity of their qualifications. meaning they are just random names on a page. you believe they know what they are talking about, whereas colonel and i would prefer a little proof. hey, like a paper written by them and reviewed by their peers! lol. i dont understand the logic of someone that would defend a list of names that (as far as we know) haven't produced any articles on the subject, if you can't even verify their qualifications at the same time? that's just dumb. |
I get it, you believe that just because the majority of people who down right oppose the official story are wrong because a much smaller circle of people with a piece of paper say the opposite? I think you are the dumb one.
| quote: | | excuse me if your "bet" isn't good enough for the rest of us. |
All in troll, I called your cheap bluff a very long time ago. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I get it, you believe that just because the majority of people who down right oppose the official story are wrong because a much smaller circle of people with a piece of paper say the opposite? I think you are the dumb one. |
lol. give us your definition of the word "majority". because it is clearly different from the way any other people use it. you really are kidding yourself if you think the demolition theory is supported by a majority of people. hahahahaha.
the cognitive dissonance displayed in this thread by you on a regular basis is amusing.
im still laughing at "majority". wow, kid. you crack me up.
hey trancer- wanna teach cretinrot about the logical fallacy- appealing to belief? i know you're a fan of your logic :D |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
first one i checked......
Robert Tamaki
| quote: | | Municipal/Urban/Town Planning, None, 2637 Grant St., Vancouver, BC, CANADA |
lol he is an urban planner........ he draws colored boxes on maps for zoning bylaws..........
Magnus Thompson - not an engineer according to the Alberta society of engineers and geophysicists...
Kees van der Bent, Designer * B.Sc., Computer Science, The Hague NL
Utrecht, Utrecht – Netherlands lol computer science..... he is qualified....... to run windows.....
Hadi Izadi - they failed to mention that his BSc, MASc, and PHD are all in thin film semiconductors AKA ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING..... again.... not qualified.... AND not liscenced....
Doug Plumb
Toronto, ON – Canada, Civil Engineer *
well i hope his business card doesnt say civil engineer..... or he is going to get a nice big 25000 dollar fine from the PEO for NOT BEING LISCENCED
Vancouver, BC – Canada Brian McHugh, BSc PgD, Consultant Engineer also not liscenced.....
And these are just the canadian ones.
first american "engineer" i tried was
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA
NOT AN LISCENCED ENGINEER according to the state board of professional engineers and land surveyors.
second one chosen at random
Jon Marino, BSCE, EIT, Design Engineer
Phoenix, AZ
funny according to the arizona state professional engineering board, he isnt an EIT
the first one i found who was at least a liscenced engineer at one point was
William D. Taylor, P.E.
B.S. Engineering
Tequesta, FL
ironically enough his liscence is currently suspended due to disciplinary action for negligence.......
now before you all jump on me for discrediting people based on their lack of credentials...... picture this
you have a rare disease. and you get advice from two people A: your neighboor who took a first year biology course in college and is convinced he can cure you or B: a lisceneced doctor who says he can cure you?
you wouldnt let a truck driver perform a heart transplant on you yet you think an electrical engineer knows the first thing about structural dynamics? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| thanks for that colonel. as suspected, the list of structural engineers is (more or less) a farce. this is why no papers have been presented for review i'd guess. ghosts dont write papers! :stongue: |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thanks for that colonel. as suspected, the list of structural engineers is (more or less) a farce. this is why no papers have been presented for review i'd guess. ghosts dont write papers! :stongue: |
unfourtunatly this is going to do very little to convince them that all these "reports" and "studies" that support explosives / space lasers / missiless etc are a crock of ..... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
unfourtunatly this is going to do very little to convince them that all these "reports" and "studies" that support explosives / space lasers / missiless etc are a crock of ..... |
true, but i love pointing it out anyway ;)
ive just looked at their site some more, these "engineers and architects" have all the same nonsense available on the other CT sites. including the most damning evidence of all: the BBC report of WTC7 coming down before it did! oh my god! thank christ we have these architects to do this research for us! :stongue: |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
true, but i love pointing it out anyway ;)
ive just looked at their site some more, these "engineers and architects" have all the same nonsense available on the other CT sites. including the most damning evidence of all: the BBC report of WTC7 coming down before it did! oh my god! thank christ we have these architects to do this research for us! :stongue: |
dont even get me started on architects........ i was going to tear into them in my previous post, but i didnt want to come accross as biased......
they have no practical knowledge of anything and im pretty sure they need assistance to wipe their own arse.....
the city just hired an architect to design a bridge........ it was a great looking thing and a nice design.... except i had to add 6 more supports for it to not fall down....... apparently in architect land they have 500 MPa concrete..... funny.... the strongest concrete you can get commercially from Lafarge or Esroc is 85 MPa..... and you pay out the ASS for it.. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | dont even get me started on architects........ i was going to tear into them in my previous post, but i didnt want to come accross as biased......
they have no practical knowledge of anything and im pretty sure they need assistance to wipe their own arse..... |
LOL!!!
Exactly why I do not take anything you say seriously, way to full of yourself. To say that architects have no practical knowledge of anything must be absolutely the most ignorant thing ever posted in this thread if not the whole forum, they design buildings you moron!
Might be just me (highly doubtful) but I think both PKC and Colonel are trying real hard to convince themselves that the lies they believe in are actually the truth. It comes across as very pathetic in their posts.
It must suck grasping to the twisted so called truth in their minds and trying to sway others on these forums that their mindset is the correct and only way to look at things.
Horrible. |
|
|
|
|
