|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 220)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bull.
What a flake you are. |
I would consider a person who holds a PE or PEng liscence with >1o yrs experience (preferably 15-20 yrs) who has worked on at least 1 structure of similar complexity as the WTC towers to be credible and expert in their field. Engineers with 2-8 years experience are still designing box stores and simple high rise structures (<30 storries). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Prove it is a fraud along with |
it has been proven. i linked you to the thread where bentham shows us all that its not a real publication worthy of any concern.
even i could tell the journal wasn't worth because of the quality of jones' letter. i have experience in reading academic papers in humanities and (believe it or not) science and jones' paper lacks professionalism.
i know you dont have much of an education so i can understand that you might be fooled into thinking the publishing actually meant something, but you clearly havent read the paper if you do, haha.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
your claim that Richard Gage is also one as well. |
gage is just a david ray griffin parrot, and both were destroyed by Ryan Mackey's paper HERE
but i wouldn't expect you to bother reading is because i know youre not the type of person to read something you disagree with. which is why you believe in all this "new world order" nonsense in the first place.
good luck, internet detective. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
So what you are saying is 2-8 years experience is not enough? I am sure you all study the same bull.
What a flake you are. |
Is there no end to your stupidity? It isn't like as an engineer you design a structure as complex as the WTC when you are 2 years out of school so how could you be qualified to comment on it?
How about this, you are sick and must have a rarely performed operation where if the doctor makes one mistake you die. You get to choose between a surgeon who is 2 years out of med school and has never performed this operation before or one who has 25 years experience and has successfully performed it many times in their career. Which one are you going to choose? |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
it has been proven. i linked you to the thread where bentham shows us all that its not a real publication worthy of any concern.
even i could tell the journal wasn't worth because of the quality of jones' letter. i have experience in reading academic papers in humanities and (believe it or not) science and jones' paper lacks professionalism.
i know you dont have much of an education so i can understand that you might be fooled into thinking the publishing actually meant something, but you clearly havent read the paper if you do, haha.
gage is just a david ray griffin parrot, and both were destroyed by Ryan Mackey's paper HERE
but i wouldn't expect you to bother reading is because i know youre not the type of person to read something you disagree with. which is why you believe in all this "new world order" nonsense in the first place.
good luck, internet detective. |
Ryan Mackay? You mean the internet shill. You are a ing joke if you are basing your information off this whack job. I said prove they are frauds with real evidence not what some internet jerk off like yourself thinks. This is disinfo and it does not surprise me considering you get all your information from forums like randi.
LOL, you just made my day I thought you where serious all this time but you have shown your real colors.
Troll. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Prove it is a fraud along with your claim that Richard Gage is also one as well. These guys are going from university to university around the world and have the respect of many professionals. What do you have exactly? You are nothing but full of .
Posting nonsense from that forum does not make you correct, I actually checked out the link and the forum is full of trolls, morons and disinformation. Looks like this is where you got that retarded 10 point list, LOL. Back up your claims with hard evidence.
I guess the structural engineers I just posted up are frauds too?
Moron. |
Bentham Journals are a Fraud
| quote: |
The Bentham Journals
Some of the guys over at JREF have dug up some interesting information regarding the Bentham Journals, the company that Steven Jones is all proud published his letter to the editor, for $600 of course. Some highlights:
Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L:
Colleagues:In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time.
And this one:
I was particularly pleased with the following:
Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal.
Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal. I don't know whether or not to be honored to be invited to contribute to the Open Journal of Sleep.
If you look at the web page of the "Open Journal Advisory Board" http://www.bentham.org/open/toeconsj/EBM.htm
you will find something remarkable. There is a list of about 40 economists who are "members of the advisory board," all but one of whose last names start with the letters A-C and only one of whom I have ever heard of. I suppose these are the top of the list of people who responded to the spam letters. What an embarrassing list to have one's name on.
|
And also, a complete and total debunking of any controlled demolition scenario by industry experts:
I know you won't read this because it is evidence that proves your points false but here it is anyway |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
You mean the internet shill. |
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. |
|
|
| culorut |
HAHA, once again I see that retarded 10 point list from the degenerate web forum. I guess you cannot deny what people are really saying about 9/11 on a global scale.
You do not care to debate what the structural engineers which have certified experience have to say about the "official story" because you cannot comprehend the full picture. Resorting to pasting BS over and over again proves you cannot handle the real story of what happened.
If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. The official story of 9/11 has reached well beyond the boiling point. |
|
|
| culorut |
Have you even thought for a second that people who look at the official story in the same light as myself already know this? People who have studied this information (and tons more) have all come to the same conclusion that the official story does not add up, it is not even close.
The official story leads to thousands of more questions, this is why people like myself question it. If you do not have a problem with wanting to know why so many innocent people died and BS wars on terror happened because of it based on fallacy go cry somewhere else.
Posting BS from screwloosechange and JREF forums like the troll PKC does not make you correct on the subject. It only shows you have to post re-hashed personal attacks against people who are questioning the legitimacy of a very thought out fairy tale.
I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes.
Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission.
This is what really speaks volumes. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
HAHA, once again I see that retarded 10 point list from the degenerate web forum. I guess you cannot deny what people are really saying about 9/11 on a global scale.
You do not care to debate what the structural engineers which have certified experience have to say about the "official story" because you cannot comprehend the full picture. Resorting to pasting BS over and over again proves you cannot handle the real story of what happened.
If you cannot take the heat get out of the kitchen. The official story of 9/11 has reached well beyond the boiling point. |
We continue to post things from that 10 point list because you continue to exhibit those characteristics in every post you make. And once again:
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
Since you cannot understand that someone with 2 years of experience is far from an expert in a field and since you still cannot tell the difference between a vanity journal and an actual peer reviewed publication.
And again you are the one failing to debate here. How many times have I asked you to provide a hypothesis supported by evidence as to what happened at the Pentagon? It has to be coming up on ten times now and have you ever answered that direct question? Nope. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Have you even thought for a second that people who look at the official story in the same light as myself already know this? People who have studied this information (and tons more) have all come to the same conclusion that the official story does not add up, it is not even close.
The official story leads to thousands of more questions, this is why people like myself question it. If you do not have a problem with wanting to know why so many innocent people died and BS wars on terror happened because of it based on fallacy go cry somewhere else.
Posting BS from screwloosechange and JREF forums like the troll PKC does not make you correct on the subject. It only shows you have to post re-hashed personal attacks against people who are questioning the legitimacy of a very thought out fairy tale.
I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes.
Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission.
This is what really speaks volumes. |
No, what speaks volumes is that even though you dismiss the "official" account of 9/11 you cannot post even a single reasonable alternate theory of what happened that stands up to any kind of critical examination. And the far-fetched tinfoil hat theories you do post are always wild speculation that cannot be backed up with any legitimate evidence. The fact that you still lend credence to ludicrous "no-plane" and controlled demolition theories that even a large part of the truther community acknowledge as having no legitimacy destroys any credibility you may have once had. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Donnie The Retard
I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes.
Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission.
This is what really speaks volumes. |
speaks volumes to your mental retardation......
the 9/11 commission sought the professional opinion of experts in the field who did a thorough and propper investigation, studied the debris and had PERTINENT CREDENTIALS to back up their competance. Further more it was a publicly peer reviewed document. While not flawless, it is the most complete and defendable hypothesis presented to date.
Loose change had two pre-pubescent morons and the interweb......
-they had no expert testimony or input into their "research" (and i use that term very loosely)
-They had no evidence or scientific proof besides coincidence and un contexted quotes from irrelevant people. In fact their entire argument centers around eyewitness subjective interpretation by unqualified hispanic janitorial staff....
On one hand you blast the NIST report because it "raises questions" and then in the same damn scentance you go on to admit that your story is full of "minor errors" (which in fact are pretty in major errors) yet loose change still has merrit? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
I could care less about who made loose change, the point is a teenager made a film about 9/11 which is the most popular (and viewed) on the internet because the official story is full of holes. |
actually, it's popular because there are a lot of ignorant children like yourself that don't know any better.
for pure interest value, how old are you culorut? i'd like to know if youre part of the kiddy crew or the more disillusioned old hippie?
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut Because there are some minor errors in the film does not make the underlying message incorrect. In fact this teenager did a hell of a better job then the 9/11 commission.
This is what really speaks volumes. |
really? only minor errors? what does dylan think?
| quote: |
Dylan Avery — “We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That’s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. ” |
|
|
|
|
|
