i didnt know that OBL allegedly chartered that flight, if that is actually true its pretty retarded. why osama would have flown his relatives out after the attacks instead of before is a bit curious though.
unless someone has evidence that the family had committed a crime though they should be allowed to go where they wish, when they wish. guilt by association doesn't work for me, especially given how large (and often estranged) his family is.
quote:
were allowed to leave the country during a no-fly decree
are you saying there was a no-fly decree even 8 days after the attacks? i didnt know that either.
either way though, had these saudi nationals been involved in the attacks in any way i seriously doubt they would have hung around until after the attacks to make their escape.
celestial thug
quote:
how on earth do you come to that assumption? if that were the case there would be a new investigation
lol, there never was a first one. not one that would have passed for an investigation anywhere in the world but in US. Besides i think you owe it to the rest of us to take this up again in an unbiased manner and by people entirely disconnected to the "establishment", so far we have spend billions of our own money on your little quagmire there.
I think it would be nice to know why im paying all that money actually, because the "official" story has got to be the most fringe foilhatter conspiracy theory i have ever heard, and then i dont give what those people who did an "investigation" came up with because even our press deemed it "biased at best", and if there are somebody that are "biased at best" it is our press, they along with our prime minister have their head stuck all the way up Bush'es ass!
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
lol, there never was a first one. not one that would have passed for an investigation anywhere in the world but in US.
haha, and yet its still the most exhaustive examination currently published by anyone in the world. the other side of the fence hasn't presented a single accurate fact that comes even remotely close to proving the retarded assumptions involved in virtually every 911 conspiracy theory.
there hasn't been a single scientifically-validated study carried out by any controlled demolition "theorist". honestly, where is it mate? youtube videos by highschool students dont cut it in the real world.
and i have yet to see a single coherent rationalisation (or a generalised A-Z if you will) of how things supposedly went down on that day. some ideas, like the "no-plane" pentagon theory, are some of the dumbest concepts i have ever encountered.
your problem is you misinterpret politically-motivated interference by public officials covering their collective arses with nefarious complicity or manufacture.
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
Besides i think you owe it to the rest of us to take this up again in an unbiased manner
i encountered 911 conspiracy theory well before i had made my mind up about anything, and well before there was much information with which to assess what was being claimed on the CT sites. initially, some of it was quite compelling, but that's only because i didn't know any better. so, i initially came to the question of controlled demolition with a skeptical, but open mind.
of course my mind isn't open now. why would it be? ive been reading this for 3-4 years. i have troofer fatigue. the "evidence" constantly presented in threads like this one and the conclusions drawn from it, i find incredibly stupid. to the point where i now think there is something deeply wrong (emotionally, mentally, psychologically- whatever) with anyone that is an advocate of the "US government orchestration of the attacks" load of intellectually-insulting bollocks.
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
and by people entirely disconnected to the "establishment",
hahaha. but the problem with people like you is that everything that doesn't come from sites like prison planet et al is considered part of the "establishment". like that one of the contributors to popular mechanics is related to bush in some way, as if that's enough to indict someone, or an entire scientific publication :haha:
fact is, if there was anything to the immensely naive allegations made by troofers, there are plenty of your so-called "establishment" members that would have destroyed the bush administration with the evidence.
what's even more ridiculous, is this idea that the bush administration is all-powerful and influences say, every single structural engineer around the whole ing globe. its the deeply stupid and naive concepts parroted by the half-informed that just bakes my noodle.
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
so far we have spend billions of our own money on your little quagmire there.
"my"? what the are you talking about? what does this have to do with me?
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
I think it would be nice to know why im paying all that money actually, because the "official" story has got to be the most fringe foilhatter conspiracy theory i have ever heard, and then i dont give what those people who did an "investigation" came up with because even our press deemed it "biased at best", and if there are somebody that are "biased at best" it is our press, they along with our prime minister have their head stuck all the way up Bush'es ass!
that's just the ranting of someone whose understanding of the world borders on the juvenile.
celestial thug
quote:
haha, and yet its still the most exhaustive examination currently published by anyone in the world. the other side of the fence hasn't presented a single accurate fact that comes even remotely close to proving the retarded assumptions involved in virtually every 911 conspiracy theory.
including but not limited to "the official" one, and you're right it is properbly one of the most questioned documents ever spawned.
quote:
and i have yet to see a single coherent rationalisation (or a generalised A-Z if you will) of how things supposedly went down on that day.
i hear you, if you cant get an answer to who did it, how, when, why, what his mothers maiden name was and what password he use on myspaze, youll just go with "the official" story, just like you just assumed im on the controlled demolision team because i have to be right? i dont support "the official" story ergo i must be "with them". Good to see how clear the message has gotten through
.
quote:
US government orchestration of the attacks" load of intellectually-insulting bollocks.
outright distortion. Who is saying that THE government did it? not very many i have heard of. Most insist that elements within the government had a hand in it, but points fingers at the military industrial complex and international bankers. The same guys that always takes the blame amongst people actually in the know, because they allways ARE to blame!
quote:
hahaha. but the problem with people like you is that everything that doesn't come from sites like prison planet et al is considered part of the "establishment".
people like me? what is that? Why do you bring up prison planet, did I invoke it?
quote:
fact is, if there was anything to the immensely naive allegations made by troofers, there are plenty of your so-called "establishment" members that would have destroyed the bush administration with the evidence.
yeah if there was such a thing as a free and independant press. they properbly would have.
quote:
what's even more ridiculous, is this idea that the bush administration is all-powerful and influences say, every single structural engineer around the whole ing globe. its the deeply stupid and naive concepts parroted by the half-informed that just bakes my noodle.
how does a faculty work, do you know? Where is the main source of information from, the info that gets to be spread on that particular faculty? Do you really belive that every single engineer makes the same tests over and over? If that is the case, then quite obviously, youre not one of those "in the know"
quote:
"my"? what the are you talking about? what does this have to do with me?
sorry bruce, i thought you were a john.
quote:
that's just the ranting of someone whose understanding of the world borders on the juvenile.
assumptions gallore and now ad hominem. are there any substance to you or is it all fluff???
pkcRAISTLIN
im not about to get bogged down with yet another idiot from the tinfoil hat brigade. i have enough of my own already. someone else can have celestial.
celestial thug
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not about to get bogged down with yet another idiot from the tinfoil hat brigade. i have enough of my own already. someone else can have celestial.
great more fluff, more ad hominem, keep it comming kid you are obviously winning the debate with your "teh smarts". name calling, non sequitur , ad hominem, what are you 15?
colonelcrisp
Question:
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
how does a faculty work, do you know? Where is the main source of information from, the info that gets to be spread on that particular faculty? Do you really belive that every single engineer makes the same tests over and over? If that is the case, then quite obviously, youre not one of those "in the know"
Answer:
They used the same information that everyone else had access to. The only difference is that they posses the credentials, liscences and expertise to properly analyse all availible data and the origional construction "as built" drawings. There really is no need to test over and over, engineers rely on their experience. I can look at the lab results for a coupon test and not only establish the steel grade just by looking at it, but weather or not the test was performed propperly. Faculty isnt the key point here. Apart from the Engineering Academic community, the truth movement and alternate theory movement is not backed by one single liscenced structural engineer, nor by one liscenced forensic structural engineer.
They didnt need access to top secret documents to analyse the collapse, they know how it was built, they understand how structures behave under critical loading conditions and they understand properly how fire and heat affect structrual integrity. and no it doesnt have to melt anything.
and yes i am "in the know"
celestial thug
quote:
They used the same information that everyone else had access to.
end of sentence... and what they altso have that everyone else has is brain power, man power, all kinds of power in fact all they have that most dont, is pieces of paper that often only mean that they were able to parrot back a canon in a satisfying way. If you get a doctorate you have to add directly to your field of expertise, thus some level of "figuring it out" are required by people with doctor degrees, but most papers from a faculty only shows that youre a great parrot. And if that is credentials to you, well...it explains a lot right there!
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by celestial thug
end of sentence... and what they altso have that everyone else has is brain power, man power, all kinds of power in fact all they have that most dont, is pieces of paper that often only mean that they were able to parrot back a canon in a satisfying way. If you get a doctorate you have to add directly to your field of expertise, thus some level of "figuring it out" are required by people with doctor degrees, but most papers from a faculty only shows that youre a great parrot. And if that is credentials to you, well...it explains a lot right there!
what they have that everyone else doesnt is experience. credentials are just a form of peer reivewed affirmations of their experience and expertise. This is why i clearly stated "liscenced" engineers are more of an authority on the topics than the purley academic variety. this goes back to the theoretical vs practical front.
my problem with doctoral degrees is that while you have to contribute to your field of expertise... that field is so narrow in scope and specialized, it rarely incorporates the larger picture. Furthermore, they still lack the practical experience of working outside of the lab.
Professional liscencure is much different from accademic accreditation. While there is a written exam (on ethics and law) in canada, your technical abilities are assesed by a committee of your peers by scruitinizing your professional experience. Its a long process, and not everyone is able to complete it. The US is a bit different. in that they have two exams plus a peer review. In either case there is no parrots involved.
culorut
Government-Funded Investigators Accused Of WTC Cover-Up
American Society of Civil Engineers lied about inability of skyscrapers to withstand airliner impacts
The American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.
The group has been forced to convene an investigative panel which could lead to a suspension in government funding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid the group about $257,000 to investigate the World Trade Center collapse and their report was released in 2002.
In an attempt to explain away the complete implosion of the twin towers shortly after the planes hit, the study concluded that skyscrapers were not designed to withstand jetliner impacts, a claim completely disproved by historical studies and contemporary investigations.
"Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner," reports the Associated Press.
"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers."
The group are also under scrutiny for their investigation of the failure of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina.
Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, "accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."
As we reported last year, architectural drawings of the World Trade Center that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction were used by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) during their study, but not before they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections. These facts were buried in the FEMA-funded ASCE report and contradictory conclusions were offered despite the fact that the group had access to the diagrams.
Numerous different World Trade Center designers and construction specialists are on record as having ruled out the possibility that multiple commercial jetliner impacts could bring the towers down. Such comments were made on a regular basis ever since the towers were first conceived and built.
A February 3, 1964 white paper which was written during the design phase of the towers stated, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
During a 1984-85 Office of Special Planning study into the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack, Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, assured investigators that whether the towers suffered a bomb attack or were hit by an airplane, there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."
A February 27 1993 Seattle Times article entitled Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision quotes John Skilling, head structural engineer for the WTC.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said Skilling.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
In a telling afterthought, Skilling said that the only way the building could be brought down was by means of well-placed explosives rigged by top experts.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it," he said.
In 2001, Leslie Robertson again stated, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane."
"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," he told a conference in Frankfurt Germany.
Also in early 2001, Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said on camera, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
As investigators have pointed out, immediately after 9/11 Leslie Robertson refused to discuss the collapse of the buildings with the media but he later recanted and agreed with NIST's conclusions - completely contradicting his previous statements and exhaustive studies carried out since the 60's about the towers' ability to withstand jetliner impacts.
Allegations of cover-up directed at The American Society of Civil Engineers are just the latest chapter in a series of hammer blows for the credibility of the official 9/11 story, arriving on the back of last month's exposé of 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow's ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack.
exactly who is making the accusation against the engineers? because the latter half of that post is nonsense, the "white paper" you refer to still hasn't been found either, so i really wonder why people keep referring to it as if it is gospel.
the titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable too, and many people went on record saying as much too. means absolutely nothing.
quote:
In an attempt to explain away the complete implosion of the twin towers shortly after the planes hit, the study concluded that skyscrapers were not designed to withstand jetliner impacts, a claim completely disproved by historical studies and contemporary investigations.
"completely disproved" ?? according to whom? Since there hasn't been an incident even remotely comparable to those planes crashing into the WTCs, I would like to know how anyone has "disproved" anything.
quote:
"Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers."
precisely. the operative words being "traditional designs" - the WTCs (including building 7) were NOT traditional designs.
colonelcrisp
you do realize that there is a huge difference between a boeing 767 and a boeing 707 right? namely 80 metric tonnes of extra metal....
