Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Here's the bottom line: While everyone has a right to their opinion, some opinions are simply more informed than others. When looking for a reliable opinion, there are three things that are critically important, educational background, training and experience.

We accept this readily in medicine. If one's having a heart attack we'd all rather consult a cardiologist with a good background who has strong training and experience. Most of us wouldn't put the opinion of a trained cardiologist on the same level as that of our friend who's a plumber or a neighbour who sells cars. Our friends and neighbors might be equally concerned with our health but they do not possess the education or expertise of the cardiologist. Hence, our pals aren't as likely to be able to offer us a life saving diagnosis or treatment.

It' really the same thing when one is dealing with concepts involving engineering and physics, educational background, training and experience are critical in supporting any hypothesis.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take Q24 as a prime example. He's clearly one of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered who is in support of the truth movement. He has managed to string together all kinds of interesting and compelling "loose ends" through vigorous study and focused analysis. I can envision a wall of his study containing photographs, hastily scribbled post it notes, strings linking exhibit to exhibit, etc... like you see on TV crime drama shows. Perhaps a disheveled desk or table with stacks of manilla folders labeled 'Pentagon' 'North Tower' 'South Tower' 'Shanksville' 'FDNY' 'Commission' 'Thermite' etc... Yet, at the same time he fails to get certain technical details right, and that is simply because he doesn't understand the physics and engineering aspects of the topic.

I don’t have a study. But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head. I really need to get a study. Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight. Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

It' really the same thing when one is dealing with concepts involving engineering and physics, educational background, training and experience are critical in supporting any hypothesis.

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

Edited by Q24
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a study. But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head. I really need to get a study.

You should. :tu:

Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight. Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

Really? I had a poorly worded portion of a post, admitted this at the time when you pointed it out, and yet the key points I was trying to illustrate still stand un-refuted. You still don't appear to account for gravity in the collapse. You completely ignore it after the initially failed story. You still seem to have no concept of how much energy was in the upper block even though you've been given the numbers numerous times. You've stated yourself that the lower portion of the building couldn't possibly stop the collapsing upper block, and yet you seem to think that after a while it actually would stop it. How? It's still the same amount of original mass plus additional mass acquired from failed stories.

You said in another thread that if the upper block were 14 stories deep, by the time it had crushed through 11 stories that 11 stories should be destroyed in the upper block at which point Bazant's statement that if there were only 3 stories collapsing the rest of the building should be able to resist collapse. Seriously?!? Here, I'll quote it.

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”. Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely. Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.
"

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

So you somehow think that Bazant's statement supports this scenario you've proposed? Do you not even realize that in this scenario there would be 22 broken, falling, and compacted stories between those last three top floors and the remaining intact structure below? When I first read this I literally laughed out loud at the complete absurdity of what you appear to envision happening.

Suppose the last three upper floors get destroyed by the next three lower floors (wouldn't happen, but let's just assume it does for the sake of argument), what then? Now there are 28 broken, falling, and compacted stories. How does the rest of the building bring that much mass to a halt or divert it all outside the building footprint?

Bazant's proposal only applies if the original upper block were that small. If the failure had taken place at the 107th story, it most likely wouldn't have resulted in global collapse. Your scenario is nothing like this. The fact that you seem to think it applies to your scenario belies your lack of technical understanding in both physics and engineering.

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

If these people are so qualified they should write a paper proving something in relation to their claims. Over 11 years have passed now and not a single one has been able to write a paper which proves controlled demolition or proves the supposed impossibility of gravity driven global collapse. Not even one? Are these all actual and practicing scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers? Why can't one of them write something up which is convincing and well substantiated? They have their own *cough* journal(s) don't they? Nearly every point raised has been rebutted, and I guarantee that not every single member of these 911 truth organizations supports all of the notions presented. Some probably signed up for completely different reasons than the technical ones you seem to think have them all convinced, and I'd bet that some of those that signed up no longer support any of the notions at all but just haven't bothered to press for removal from the list. I'm guessing there, so let's ignore that and assume that every single one is convinced for the same reasons and is still an active and supporting member. They should get together and write something substantial if they want to make any headway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I had a poorly worded portion of a post, admitted this at the time when you pointed it out, and yet the key points I was trying to illustrate still stand un-refuted.

It was poor alright – and no matter you failing to take the information onboard, it’s all been refuted except in your own mind.

You still don't appear to account for gravity in the collapse.

Err yeah... of course, I do think the tower debris is still hovering there in mid-air today.

You've stated yourself that the lower portion of the building couldn't possibly stop the collapsing upper block, and yet you seem to think that after a while it actually would stop it. How? It's still the same amount of original mass plus additional mass acquired from failed stories.

Once you appreciate the significant difference between the application of a boulder and the same mass of sand, despite the fact that each may contain overall equivalent energy, then we can talk. When you reach that stage, you will understand how the eventual broken mass of the upper tower which initially drove the collapse is no longer like the intact and rigid block/‘piledriver’ the official theory depends upon. You might also then understand how a collapse may be arrested – because, believe it or not, once a collapse begins, it is not necessarily perpetual. Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

If these people are so qualified they should write a paper proving something in relation to their claims. Over 11 years have passed now and not a single one has been able to write a paper which proves controlled demolition or proves the supposed impossibility of gravity driven global collapse. Not even one? Are these all actual and practicing scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers? Why can't one of them write something up which is convincing and well substantiated? They have their own *cough* journal(s) don't they?

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

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: -

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

As I have explained this to you and provided the evidence before, I find your complaint to be quite disingenuous.

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a study. But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head. I really need to get a study. Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight. Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Were you aware that the majority of architects and civil engineers do not support the 9/11 movement? In fact, they have distanced themselves from 9/11 Truthers.

img_bannerlogo.jpg

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 Magazine 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t have a study. But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head. I really need to get a study. Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight. Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

:yes: :yes: :yes::w00t: Yes, again attempt posting unbiased, un influenced opinions and "truth", under the veil of 9-11 truth organizations?/?/?/?

Nice..although somewhat typical a CT response.

Jeez...there are no such real organizations. You need the engineers and the ascientists involved in the actual investigation; not a bunch of CT-minded wannabes who post incongruous opinions, and fail to back them up...at all!

You need to show legitimate criticism, and illustrate the falacy in their studies.

But you're not going to do that, because you wouldn't dare talk to them, and what you think about what you saw doesn't exist.

Qualified individuals determined, after lots of work you've never done, exactly what happened on 9-11 and now it is well known. It's even understood by some!

:yes:

I understand the doubts.

This was an incomprehensible, astoundingly amazing event. Not even the most active imagination could've thought up something like that, and that's the impetus for the comments of people like you. You still can't believe it. There's got to be a more resonable explanation for the most unreasonable event in modern history!

However, we've seen your "efforts". Your opinion has been expressed, albeit not proven in the slightest (and it's OK. I don't think most of us expected that).

I think you're finshed being entertained too much by those, like me, who actually do know something about this matter.

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

I'm betting boony and lots of others understand it just fine but find it insufficient. 'Easily answered' is not the same thing as 'easily refuted'.

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

Ha, "unbiased", nice, now we're on to just bald 'poisoning the well'. Classy.

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'?

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

And if they don't find it, perhaps they'll just invent it anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it. Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

So whether you or I or Q or Boo or any other human understands what actually happened, it happened.

The truth exists, and our goals is to try to find it, if we may.

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it. Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

It's not just historical events, in all events the actual truth exists separate from human understanding of knowledge of it, as long as we agree there is an objective reality.

So whether you or I or Q or Boo or any other human understands what actually happened, it happened.

The truth exists, and our goals is to try to find it, if we may.

Ultimately perhaps, BR. I don't get the impression from a lot of what you post though that you are actually trying to find it, you come across as insisting you've found it already.

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

It is likewise true that you may be mistaken that there was some sort of huge heat event that jetfuel and gravity could not generate, since as you said the actual truth exists separate from your understanding of it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was poor alright – and no matter you failing to take the information onboard, it’s all been refuted except in your own mind.

Should we talk about your contention that "The motion of the lowest affected story is not downward due to gravity but always due to the ‘greater than gravity’ momentum of the upper block." next?

What about momentum is 'greater than gravity' anyway?

More and more evidence that you lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the physics and engineering aspects of the collapses. Of course people have attempted to help you with this understanding, but you are oh so resistant to the information which has been repeatedly provided for you.

Once you appreciate the significant difference between the application of a boulder and the same mass of sand, despite the fact that each may contain overall equivalent energy, then we can talk. When you reach that stage, you will understand how the eventual broken mass of the upper tower which initially drove the collapse is no longer like the intact and rigid block/‘piledriver’ the official theory depends upon. You might also then understand how a collapse may be arrested – because, believe it or not, once a collapse begins, it is not necessarily perpetual. Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

I do understand how a collapse may be arrested, but the conditions present on that day do not meet the requirements of this. The collapsing portion of the building was simply too massive to be stopped by the structure below. The requirements are as you quoted from Bazant, the upper block would have to be small; 3 to 5 stories or less. The upper block wasn't this small. It was at a minimum a 12 story section of the building. Too big. Too much mass. Stopping that would take an act of God.

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

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: -

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

If even one of those papers had accomplished what you claim here, "prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions," then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The fact of the matter is that none of those papers have accomplished what you claim.

As I have explained this to you and provided the evidence before, I find your complaint to be quite disingenuous.

You've provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

Those who want to learn will take the time necessary to understand why the 911 Truth Movement is primarily a load of bunkum. Those who want to cling to the bunkum will avoid at all cost learning why it is bunkum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you aware that the majority of architects and civil engineers do not support the 9/11 movement? In fact, they have distanced themselves from 9/11 Truthers.

Well, Sky, I know it doesn't help you all that much, but I am aware of that, and I understand why they distance themselves from the "truthers"* (like the vast majority of engineers do!)!

* Gotta wonder about that "truther" designation, don't ya?

:tsu: :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got right to the heart of the matter LG.

Objective reality, and how do we define it?

And I appreciate the input about how you think that I think I have found the truth. I take that as a compliment, for in a sense I have found the truth, and it is quite simple. So simple that anybody can understand it.

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I appreciate the input about how you think that I think I have found the truth. I take that as a compliment, for in a sense I have found the truth, and it is quite simple. So simple that anybody can understand it.

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil. :no:

Wrong. Since all you have is circumstantial evidence (at best) and evidence that has not held up to scruitiny, the only truth you SHOULD have found is how flawed your theories are.

Because you disregard any evidence that refutes your opinion of "reality", does not mean you have a free pass to sit back and claim victory.

Your opinions on the Ross and Furlong paper is riddled with IF's.

IF the timing is correct

IF Rodriguez is not lying

IF FAA crash time reporting is correct

IF the other 12 people in the basement

Then that peice of evidence that supports your demolition theory has not held up to scruitny and shouldn't be considered evidence of any controlled demolitions at all.

Edited by RaptorBites
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Sky, I know it doesn't help you all that much, but I am aware of that, and I understand why they distance themselves from the "truthers"* (like the vast majority of engineers do!)!

* Gotta wonder about that "truther" designation, don't ya?

:tsu: :tsu:

They should have taken a hint when no one from the AIA was present at Richard Gage's presentation. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

The real truth is, your claims are far from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it. Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

Actually the truth exists because of human uinderstanding and knowledge of it.

And, it's nothing like the tree falling in the forest.

It was like two buildings, observed falling by millions nationwide, and recorded on film, which aided in the study and analysis of the events.

Often, the tree falling in the forest has no one there to record the event.

Those buildings fell and millions of people, in addition to the plethora of live eye witnesses, saw it happen, and it was recorded.

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked

You're right, that is true, and we know exactly how and what happened there that morning. I'm glad you see the light.

,

and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

Well, at least you understand the Pentagon.

But fundamentally, you're a little shy on the tower's fires.

They could only have happened because of jet fuel, and they did happen because of a large quantity of it, exploding into huge flame balls and igniting all of that fuel inside the buildings...

. However, it might be interesting to know what gravity had to do with that...but there's no real need to try and explain that. Fire's kind of simple. We all understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

It has already been proven that explosives and thermite were not responsible, which leaves fires and gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Since all you have is circumstantial evidence (at best) and evidence that has not held up to scruitiny, the only truth you SHOULD have found is how flawed your theories are.

Because you disregard any evidence that refutes your opinion of "reality", does not mean you have a free pass to sit back and claim victory.

Your opinions on the Ross and Furlong paper is riddled with IF's.

IF the timing is correct

IF Rodriguez is not lying

IF FAA crash time reporting is correct

IF the other 12 people in the basement

Then that peice of evidence that supports your demolition theory has not held up to scruitny and shouldn't be considered evidence of any controlled demolitions at all.

I accept all the evidence Raptor, including yours.

I just interpret it differently, and I ain't the only one.

You seem to reject evidence that works against your position.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a news clip from a cnn reporter and he said it was not a plane and there was nothing at the site to think it was a plane.

its on youtube iam to lazy to find it lol. if it was a plane how come light poles where not knocked down and parts all over the place.

that place was built to take a big hit

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a news clip from a cnn reporter and he said it was not a plane and there was nothing at the site to think it was a plane.

its on youtube iam to lazy to find it lol.

That's not what he said. Stop being lazy, find the clip and see for yourself.

if it was a plane how come light poles where not knocked down and parts all over the place.

Light poles WERE knocked down and wreckage WAS all over the place.

It sounds very much like you actually haven't seen the images of the crash scene. Is that part of that whole "too lazy to find it" thing you seem to be so proud of have going on...?

that place was built to take a big hit

Yes, the Pentagon was built to "take a big hit" inasmuch as its outer walls were reinforced to a certain degree but what makes you "think" that the damage seen there (in the images you seemingly haven't looked at) on that day was any different than should be expected when said building is hit by a 200,000+ pound aircraft traveling over 500 mph...?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective reality, and how do we define it?

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil. :no:

It isn't difficult, unless it's you attempting to understand the real data and argue a skewed opinion.

All too easy, until you attempt to argue with those who do know something.

There is no OTC.

You never quite seem to get that. There's only engineering and scientific analysis which shows exactly what happened, and how it happened.

There's no conspiracy involved in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: -

So, I sent a rather heated email to the JEM staff, asking them why Dr. Bazant was allowed to completely ignore the 2000 word limit in criticizing me and my Discussion paper, when I complied with it in good faith. I told them there were three ways to fairly resolve the situation.

First, JEM could pull my Discussion paper and his Closure paper from publication. JEM refused to do this. In hindsight, I’m actually glad they didn’t choose this option. The results of Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper are ludicrous, and demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of his theory. Even though I was treated unfairly, on balance I’m glad both papers were ultimately published.

Second, JEM could allow me to revise my paper free from the 2000 word limit I had originally complied with in good faith. If I was allowed to revise my paper without worrying about the word limit, I could have included all of my criticisms of his paper, and included mathematical equations to support my arguments. JEM refused to do this. This would have been the preferred option, but for some reason, I was not allowed to resubmit a revised paper exceeding the 2000 word limit.

Third, JEM could force Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit. This was not preferable, but at least would have leveled the playing field. I would rather everyone have the same opportunity to fully develop their arguments and let the public decide who to believe. Unfortunately, this is not what ended up happening. After several rounds of email correspondence, JEM decided that they would ask Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit, and remove the offensive language I had identified.

You can imagine my surprise again when I learned last week that both of our papers had been published in the October issue of JEM. I was never given another opportunity to review Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper before it was published. If you read through it, you can see why. Dr. Bazant was not required to comply with the 2000 word limit, as the JEM staff promised me he would. My rough estimate is that in his Closure’s response to my Discussion is between 4000 and 6000 words in length.

His Closure paper still derides me for not including equations in support of my position, without mentioning that there is no way I could have done that and still complied with the 2000 word limit, and that I was not allowed to revise my paper by JEM staff. Any fair peer review would not have allowed him to say this. JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.

In fact, he spends 2000 words responding to the steel temperature portion of my Discussion paper alone. JEM allowed him to use that much text to respond to my one paragraph on his misrepresentations of the steel temperatures reported by NIST. Dr. Bazant is clearly held to a different standard at JEM. How can JEM possibly be seen as a fair and balanced in this situation?

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: -

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Here's a tissue for him.

Kleenex.jpg

When he's done drying his crying eyes, please ask him to come back with something substantial. So far he's only been put in his place because he had no idea what he was talking about. Let him return after all this time with something worthy of rebuttal.

It's not going to happen though because he isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to address the physics and engineering aspects of the question at hand; much like yourself.

The truth hurts, but that's what this movement is all about right? The TruthTM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a tissue for him.

Kleenex.jpg

When he's done drying his crying eyes, please ask him to come back with something substantial. So far he's only been put in his place because he had no idea what he was talking about. Let him return after all this time with something worthy of rebuttal.

It's not going to happen though because he isn't qualified or knowledgeable enough to address the physics and engineering aspects of the question at hand; much like yourself.

The truth hurts, but that's what this movement is all about right? The TruthTM?

Translation: “Yes the publishing rules at JEM are clearly biased (which is the whole point in your post Q), but I’m not objective either so I don’t care, nor will I consider it when disingenuously requesting papers opposing the official theory be published in mainstream journals. Instead I’ll cover for this with silly pictures and comments, in hope that other biased people see it as a good argument.”

By the way... I should have added in my previous post... when is that pile of politically driven pseudo-science that NIST came up with to prop-up the official story going to be peer-reviewed? How many years has it been now?

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "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."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "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."

~James Quintierre, NIST former Chief of Fire Science Division

http://www.ae911trut...estigation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.