3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Coffey, on 10 October 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

And

http://en.wikipedia....nistan_Pipeline

What  you see with your own eyes in that video is that there are no bomb explosions, nor are bomb explosions heard, and add to the fact that no evidence of detonation cords or blasting caps were recovered from the rubble of WTC7, nor any of the WTC buildings for that matter.

This is what real controlled demolitions using explosives sound like, which is not what you saw nor heard in the WTC7 video you've posted.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 October 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 08 October 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Q24, on 08 October 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

Liquid Gardens, on 06 October 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject: -

Double ha, 'have been proven biased in applying publishing rules', the familiar whine of the anti-evolution creationist, great company to be keeping.  Do you have actual evidence from a mainstream journal indicating, 'your paper is scientifically sound and meets all the criteria for publication but we can't do that because of political sensitivity' or anything along those lines?  Or does this also require me to just be 'unbiased'?

I’ve requested on at least two previous occasions that you review the complaint of U.S. attorney James Gourley regarding the publishing rules at JEM.  Here is an excerpt so perhaps you can see favouritism granted to the official theory’s 'golden engineer' and bias the truth movement must face: -

Okay.  And?  Exactly how am I supposed to differentiate between 'bias' applied to Gourley because he's a truther and bias applied to Gourley because his work doesn't meet the standards of this journal?  Exactly how have you differentiated those two?

Ok, first you challenged me to prove that bias exists, which I did.  Now you want to know the cause of the bias.  Well, in answer to your question, Gourley’s paper was peer-reviewed and published - indicating it met standards of the journal.  Which leaves your remaining answer.

Liquid Gardens, on 08 October 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

And is it true this was 4 years ago?  Is your story that in this amount of time the only reason that he hasn't made more headway spreading his sound scientific reasoning is because almost everyone in the engineering/mechanics world is unfairly biased against truthers?

If you go back to the beginning of this line of discussion (very first quote of this post), my point is self-explanatory:  that papers for 9/11 truth have been published in mainstream journals but have faced editorial bias in doing so (that fact was actually just a side-note that you jumped on).

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made.  We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone.  I used to keep a track of the numbers, please excuse the recent three year gap: -

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724
Jul 7th, 09 - 717
May 31st, 09 – 671
Apr 29th, 09 – 643
Mar 1st, 09 – 600+
Aug 17th, 08 – 428
Aug 3rd, 08 – 418
Jul 29th, 08 – 400+
May 14th, 08 – 380
May 8th, 08 – 360+
Apr 26th, 08 – 300+
Jan 5th, 08 – 233

That’s an average of nearly one new architect or engineer every day over the last almost 5 years.

Why isn’t it even more, given the call is so well founded?  The reasons are many – bias in the mainstream media/journals, failure of the professional community, disruption of the truth movement - and we have spoken about this in large part on the Talking Turkey thread from pg. 5/6.

The first reason I mentioned, post #66, was the deliberate efforts of the Bush administration and counter intelligence to divide, discredit and counteract the truth movement.  You did not respond to evidence for this occurrence.  So I still wonder, how do you find the research and background of Morgan Reynolds?

[Q24]

RaptorBites, on 10 October 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

The evidence presented that supports the Official Narritive is abundant and pretty straight forward.

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation.  I could ask dozens of potentially vital questions that could only be answered with speculation.  Is that really good enough to support a war?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made.  We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone.  

Just a reminder that the '9/11 Truth Movement' does not have the support of Architects & Engineers.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation.

Only in the minds of those who have been watching too many Hollywood action movies and not interested in facts and evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks. To back that up, 9/11 conspiracist have consistently failed to provide evidence of a "false flag' operation.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 October 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

The evidence presented for the official story is full of information gaps and neglects wider connected facts indicating an intelligence driven false flag operation.  I could ask dozens of potentially vital questions that could only be answered with speculation.  Is that really good enough to support a war?

No it isn't!

We didn't go to war when:

* Terrorist set off explosives beneath WTC1 in 1993



* Terrorist detonated explosives next to the USS Cole



* Terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, and Lebanon.





*  When Pan Am 103 was downed by a bomb.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 10 October 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Ok, first you challenged me to prove that bias exists, which I did.  Now you want to know the cause of the bias.  Well, in answer to your question, Gourley’s paper was peer-reviewed and published - indicating it met standards of the journal.  Which leaves your remaining answer.

Okay, but the entire point was to determine if this should be called 'bias' in the first place, I'm using your word.  I wouldn't use the word 'bias' to refer to the scenario where his work doesn't meet the standards of the journal; it might be accurate in the absolute broadest definition, but I wouldn't say that the Detroit Tigers are 'biased' against me because they won't let me join their team.  That's cool that his paper was peer-reviewed and published, I had read various references but wasn't sure if there were multiple papers or submissions, sounds like truthers are making some headway then.  I'm not sure what to make about Bazant not having the same word restrictions, is this just absolutely unheard of by this journal on other topics?  Despite your finding him to be a criminal, he has a very impressive scientific resume, awards, etc, maybe they loosen the rules for him or for distinguished scientists or papers they find to be exceptionally excellent, I'm not sure.  Or maybe they're just automatically biased against truthers, that's a possibility.  Not sure if it's the only one though, I don't really have enough info, you're always going to also have the fact that they are a private journal and can publish or not publish anything they want for any reason they want, of which 'bias' is only one of them.

And yes, I did want to know the cause of the bias, because you stated the cause of the bias, political sensitivity, but didn't address my question concerning that.  There is legitimate 'bias', and there is illegitimate bias.  Perhaps they are biased against truthers because of how embarrassingly crappy some of the arguments that other truthers have made?  Ultimately that is also unfair and biased, they should evaluate each submission on its own merits, but it's not because of political sensitivity.  Scientific journals are also pretty heavily 'biased' against perpetual motion machines and intelligent design, and IDists especially make the exact same complaints that apparently truthers make.  It might be because of political sensitivity/atheism, or it might be because of the poorness of the science or other reasons, some of which strain the definition of 'bias' as I think it's normally used.

Quote

Speaking of headway in the professional community, it is apparent that some has been made.  We can see this in the membership of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth alone.  I used to keep a track of the numbers, please excuse the recent three year gap: -

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724
Jul 7th, 09 - 717
May 31st, 09 – 671
Apr 29th, 09 – 643
Mar 1st, 09 – 600+
Aug 17th, 08 – 428
Aug 3rd, 08 – 418
Jul 29th, 08 – 400+
May 14th, 08 – 380
May 8th, 08 – 360+
Apr 26th, 08 – 300+
Jan 5th, 08 – 233

That’s an average of nearly one new architect or engineer every day over the last almost 5 years.

Why isn’t it even more, given the call is so well founded?  The reasons are many – bias in the mainstream media/journals, failure of the professional community, disruption of the truth movement - and we have spoken about this in large part on the Talking Turkey thread from pg. 5/6.

And of course another reason is perhaps your case is not quite as strong, blatant, and solid as you seem to believe.  That experts who know full well and better than you how to evaluate the points you argue, legitimately and correctly do not agree with you.  These are possibilities, and they don't seem to be remote ones to many people.  As long as we're discussing 'bias' and all...

Quote

The first reason I mentioned, post #66, was the deliberate efforts of the Bush administration and counter intelligence to divide, discredit and counteract the truth movement.  You did not respond to evidence for this occurrence.  So I still wonder, how do you find the research and background of Morgan Reynolds?

Let me look into that again, Q;  I am beyond work-swamped right now, but I will get back to you on this and your latest posts on TT.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 11 October 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

I'm not sure what to make about Bazant not having the same word restrictions, is this just absolutely unheard of by this journal on other topics?  Despite your finding him to be a criminal, he has a very impressive scientific resume, awards, etc, maybe they loosen the rules for him or for distinguished scientists or papers they find to be exceptionally excellent, I'm not sure.

Ok, that’s what I’m looking for.

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments.  Does the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive past resume on paper, make it fair?  Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, makes it fair?  Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, and that the truth movement is attacked from within, makes it fair?  Well then, perhaps it’s fair that scientists were silenced during the time of Lysenkoism?

No, none of this is genuinely fair; it is illegitimately biased.

I do respect the way you begin and end the quoted section above with, “I’m not sure”, almost accepting the bias is apparent, but holding out for another answer which you cannot grasp (most likely because it does not exist).  It’s nothing to do with technical standard of the journal which you brought up again in your post – that is for the peer-review to decide, which Gourley’s paper passed.  The decision to limit Gourley/de-limit Bazant is an editorial/political decision.  And of course 9/11 is a political issue.  Can you imagine the attack JEM would be open to from powerful pro-war elements of the establishment if the journal gave appearance of the official and alternative 9/11 theories being on equal standing?

Anyhow, as I said, the difficulty of publishing such sensitive papers is really just a sideshow.  Those seeking 9/11 truth have managed to publish papers, not only many at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but in mainstream journals – that was the real point.  I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals.  Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model.  Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

People should really not criticize efforts of the truth movement and bias they face before getting their own house in order.

Liquid Gardens, on 11 October 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

That experts who know full well and better than you how to evaluate the points you argue, legitimately and correctly do not agree with you.

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me.  Can you show me all these experts who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me?  If not, it seems that my support is built upon facts and figures, whilst that you appeal to would be founded more in possibilities and speculation.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 11 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me.

May I remind you that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not have the support of professional and private pilots, architects, and civil engineers.

Quote

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM



Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
______________________________________________________________________________

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

_________________________________________________________________


More on this article can be found here:

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 October 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 11 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments.

Two quick points about this topic.  First, the editor has the option of allowing longer articles if he thinks the topic merits it:

The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.

http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/

Second, you keep claiming that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed, but in fact discussion pieces just go through an editorial review process:

To accept or decline a Discussion or Closure, one review is required by the editor or someone he or she designates to review Discussions. It does not need to be sent to an individual reviewer unless the Discussion reviewer feels an outside review, for particular expertise, is necessary.

http://www.asce.org/...on-Peer-Review/

If you want my opinion on the whole topic, I think the significant point is that after the one discussion paper, Gourley doesn't attempt to continue the technical argument but instead does a typical conspiracist shift to something he thinks has more mileage, the fact that Bazant was allowed more words than he was.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 11 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

If you nominate someone as an expert, you don't get to cherry-pick which of his opinions you accept and which you reject.  In spite of all his reservations about the NIST investigation, Quintiere doesn't support your position at all:
Quintiere stressed, however, that he never believed explosives played a role. He said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.
http://www.guardian....september11.usa

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 11 October 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

May I remind you that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not have the support of professional and private pilots, architects, and civil engineers.

All you are reminding me is that your statements are ignorant or badly worded.

Yes the truth movement does have the support of thousands of professionals in all fields, including hundreds of pilots and the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who petition for a new WTC investigation.  In fact, the truth movement has more professionals in support who have demonstratably researched the subject, than can be said for those in support of the official theory.

It is apparent that what you are actually trying to say is that the truth movement does not have support of the largest professional membership bodies, and that would be quite true.  But as these entities are not necessarily representative of the views of their membership (many of whom may not have independently researched the subject), this means very little quantifiable.  

flyingswan, on 12 October 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Two quick points about this topic.  First, the editor has the option of allowing longer articles if he thinks the topic merits it:

The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.

http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/

Second, you keep claiming that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed, but in fact discussion pieces just go through an editorial review process:

To accept or decline a Discussion or Closure, one review is required by the editor or someone he or she designates to review Discussions. It does not need to be sent to an individual reviewer unless the Discussion reviewer feels an outside review, for particular expertise, is necessary.

http://www.asce.org/...on-Peer-Review/

This does not affect any of my argument, only further demonstrates that mainstream journal publications are almost entirely at mercy of the editor and possible political considerations.

flyingswan, on 12 October 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

If you nominate someone as an expert, you don't get to cherry-pick which of his opinions you accept and which you reject.  In spite of all his reservations about the NIST investigation, Quintiere doesn't support your position at all:
Quintiere stressed, however, that he never believed explosives played a role. He said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.
http://www.guardian....september11.usa

Of course you get to pick which opinions you accept and which you reject when such opinions do not impinge upon one another – obviously people can have overlapping areas of agreement without agreeing wholesale.  There are two theories here:  the NIST theory and the demolition theory.  I am using an area of agreement between Quintiere and myself – his scathing attack on the NIST study - to make the point that NIST failed to prove their case.  I am not using the area where Quintiere and myself disagree – the WTC demolitions - as evidence for my case.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 12 October 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

This does not affect any of my argument, only further demonstrates that mainstream journal publications are almost entirely at mercy of the editor and possible political considerations.

It certainly affects your erroneous claim that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed.

Quote

Of course you get to pick which opinions you accept and which you reject when such opinions do not impinge upon one another – obviously people can have overlapping areas of agreement without agreeing wholesale.  There are two theories here:  the NIST theory and the demolition theory.  I am using an area of agreement between Quintiere and myself – his scathing attack on the NIST study - to make the point that NIST failed to prove their case.  I am not using the area where Quintiere and myself disagree – the WTC demolitions - as evidence for my case.

A ridiculous argument.

The only point for you invoking Quintiere's name is that he is an expert on building fires who supports your NIST case.  If his expertise is so dubious that he can't identify a demolition, why should his opinion of the NIST investigation carry any weight?  If his expertise is so great that it supports your case about NIST, why doesn't it support the case for no demolition?

Edited by flyingswan, 12 October 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 12 October 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

It certainly affects your erroneous claim that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed.

Obviously you have not read the previous discussion, or at least gathered the point.  The issue was regarding whether Gourley’s piece met standards of the journal.  Seeing as it was reviewed and published, that was clearly the case.  Whether it was “peer-reviewed” or “editor-reviewed” has no bearing on the point - Gourley's piece was fit for publication.

flyingswan, on 12 October 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

A ridiculous argument.

The only point for you invoking Quintiere's name is that he is an expert on building fires who supports your NIST case.  If his expertise is so dubious that he can't identify a demolition, why should his opinion of the NIST investigation carry any weight?  If his expertise is so great that it supports your case about NIST, why doesn't it support the case for no demolition?

The only thing ridiculous is your insistence that you must agree with every aspect of another person’s view to find common ground in one area – what a daft argument.  To the rest of your comment:  Quintiere is, as you said, a building fire expert, not a covert controlled demolition expert.  He is best placed to critique the NIST study.  And again, the fact is, as pointed out by Quintiere, that the NIST study failed to prove cause of the WTC collapses.  I’m not interested in your sidetracking beyond that.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 12 October 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Obviously you have not read the previous discussion, or at least gathered the point.  The issue was regarding whether Gourley’s piece met standards of the journal.  Seeing as it was reviewed and published, that was clearly the case.  Whether it was “peer-reviewed” or “editor-reviewed” has no bearing on the point - Gourley's piece was fit for publication.

As the Journal obviously had different standards for discussion pieces, which didn't involve peer review, your use of the term is misleading.

Quote

The only thing ridiculous is your insistence that you must agree with every aspect of another person’s view to find common ground in one area – what a daft argument.  To the rest of your comment:  Quintiere is, as you said, a building fire expert, not a covert controlled demolition expert.  

You are simply begging the question.  Just because you claim a covert demolition, you can't rule out Quintiere's expertise in building fires.  If you are wrong about the demolition and the fires brought down the building, Quintiere's expertise in building fires is relevant.  You have to prove your covert demolition first, and a major obstacle to that proof is that you have to explain why an expert in fires who you hold in high regard rules out a demolition.