See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Source:
opednews.com
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7524
Published: Jun 2, 2008
Author: Diary Entry by George Washington
Post Date: 2008-06-02 22:50:01 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 911, "Impossible", "Violates the Law of Physicsā€¯
Views: 1466
Comments: 117
May 27, 2008 at 15:08:49 Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics” Diary Entry by George Washington Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics" :::::::: Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including: A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this) Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired) Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College See this website and this website for further additions. There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz, Original_Intent (#0)
Christ, what took them so long? Maybe they were waiting for Mearsheimer and Walt to weaken the Zionists' stranglehold on the minds of Americans before acting.
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Funny? I could have sworn that I was saying that 4 or 5 years ago. Where were these quaking yella' bellies 4 or 5 years ago when people were already making these connections? Methinks these clowns are speaking up only now because of the courageous people who stood up to the withering blasts of "Kook", "Conspiracy Theorist", "Whack Job", etc., ... It was the voices of the people courageous enough to state the obvious years in advance of these late coming worms. I'm glad to see that their jellied spines have developed enough rigidity at this late date to speak up, but where were these voices on Jan. 1 2002? Well, where were they?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. ... I don't want to be critical here, but you really have to read an awful lot into that for it to make sense. I mean, for one thing, a "controlled demolition" does not violate the laws of physics, and if that's what it takes ....
At least some of these quotes are old. They're just quotes, why assume they're new except to assume something for which there is no evidence.
Of course not. Heaven forfend that we might mistake your caustic innuendoes for criticism. Shucks, we would never do that. We never mistake snide comments for mere criticism.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Who's "we", you and Houndclown?
Your point? You do I presume?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Pretty soon every dumbass bozo in the place will be ganging up on me, I suppose.
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I noticed Houndclown started the concept of "all quotes are fresh" and you contributed. There's really no point in asking you if you know how fresh the quotes are. It's obvious you have no idea.
Pretty soon every dumbass bozo in the place will be ganging up on me, I suppose. "Dr. Heckle meet Mr. Snide."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
What is obvious is that you are trying to start a pissing contest to divert from the topic of the thread upon which you have offered nothing of any substance. Merely brickbats, innuendoes, and sniping attacks to try to draw people off topic and into a flame contest. Hint: If I wanted to bite you are no match for me in a flame war. No brag. Just fact.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
How was that supposed to be stopped? With reason? Please. It's freaking Utah out there, get a grip.
You'll win in any kind of dispute here is what you're saying. I understand you. You're Mr. Winner on the Internet. Never thought I'd find you.
patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html Patriots Question 911: 130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 480+ Engineers and Architects 110+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 260+ Professors Question 9/11 210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 140+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals RECENT ARTICLES: Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce” Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up" Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed" Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" Sep. 23, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
What took these cowards so long to come out of hiding? I am not a structural engineer and I knew something was really odd about they way the towers came down the first time I saw it. The media had already saturated the airwaves on the radio that it was a "progressive failure", and that that was the reason it came down, only hours after it actually happened. So when I first saw it on TV later in the day I was thinking, HOW? How could that possibly be? But since I had already heard these "experts" earlier there was already a seed planted in my mind that it was a progressive collapse and I assumed that they must know what they are talking about, but it did seem very strange to me. Regrettably I forgot about how strange the collapse was until a couple years later when I started investigating it more. However from day one I knew that at minimum our government knew about this plan and let it happen either through negligence, or on purpose, but I never thought they actually planned and carried it out themselves until 2003. Americans have been lied to from day one, and the main stream media will never report the truth about this, especially since they are an active participant in the disinformation campaign for the government. If they reported the truth about it now it would also implicate them for putting out known lies to start with. They will cover for their sources until hell freezes over.
God is always good!
Look, these are not all new quotes, a little searching will show many of these names have been published already. It looks suspicious when everyone is jumping to the same lame conclusion. You know what I mean by suspicious? I mean the basis for time-contingent insults to these people from numerous posters here, posted almost sequentially, is suspicious. You pulled the "where were they for Jones" thing out of nowhere too. Another distraction.
Jan 1, 2007 Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses? — Editor The 6 years since 9/11/01 has given us the time and space to emerge from the hypnotic trance of the shocks of these attacks and to rationally evaluate the existing and new evidence that has become available. Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience. In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"... and, quite willing to, "go along" with the collective myth that has unfolded: that "the buildings failed structurally due to the aircraft impacts and resulting fires". After all, we saw the aircraft slam into the building, the resulting huge fireball, and the ensuing "collapses". There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST. It lays out a solid convincing case which architects & engineers will readily see: that the 3 WTC high-rise buildings were destroyed by both classic and novel forms of controlled demolition. You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly. After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power. We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. Please join us in calling for a re-investigation.
Or until their feet are held to the fire. One thing that should occur is to jerk their Broadcast licenses. That would get their attention.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
They have been keeping a low profile, that's for sure. I can imagine the very real threats from the CIA and Mossad goons to keep quite or else having a great influence on their decision to keep a low profile.
God is always good!
Low profile? Seems like all the names are up in a big list prominently featured on a major 9/11 truth website. You call that "low profile?" The list has been there for some time and I suppose it is still growing. Trying to cut that growth off as being too late? Were they all supposed to go on air with Alex Jones or something like that?
Scientists, Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth Radio Show w' Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA
Professor Jones being forced out was meant to be a warning and an example designed to have a chilling effect on credentialed discussion. It was an attempt to define explosive demolition as "out of bounds", but thanks to Professor Jones' principled stand, and continuing to stand up, others can now speak up without fear of suffering the same fate. That is why we see the worms popping out of the wood work. More will now follow. I am hoping it becomes a tidal wave that cannot be stopped. Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals. (While I am historically highly critical of such Journals as merely being gatekeepers designed to inhibit original thought they have the virtue of being granted credence by Academia and Credentialed Professionals.)
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Forget you're under the ZOG, or what? I think you skipped a step or two.
Do you hear that Gnat buzzing around too?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Questions which are Unanswered on 911 - Pakistan Daily 05/25/08
Y'all burning something? Why, it's mah effigy! A train of torches approaches in the dark. Hoods? I was too damn caustic.
Steven Jones Calls for 9/11 Criminal Investigations (05/17/08)
I'm waiting for the first Congresscritter to break ranks and come out with a mea culpa. "I'm shocked! Do you hear me? Shocked. It has just been brought to my attention ..."
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Your character criticisms of these people who have published their names supposedly should have gone unchallenged and you are ganging up with the poster who called them "cowards" --- that is my perception of y'all's progress so far. Comments? Ah I forgot - I was the nasty snide one for correctly noting a technical error of ellipticality in one quote and not judging the person's character on it, according to you, Mr. Winner on the Internet. You're all quite the professional puke party. There would be no reason to lambaste these people even if the quotes were new, unless you want to halt the growth of it. Late if it's new, maybe, but better late than never.
Jones is founding editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to scientific examination of the events of 9/11. He also recently authored the first article on 9/11 to be published in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal, The Open Civil Engineering Journal (TOCEJ). The article is entitled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" (18 April 2008).
Great replies fellas, but, I didn't bother because the relevance of The Troll's observation has yet to be established. I think you're correct in assuming that either he is attempting to deflect away from the subject or, is in desperate need of some validation. Having assessed his mental disorder previously I see no need to cross swords with ignorance again. I know the difference between wit and venom and responding to the latter would favor the unworthy. As luck would have it, we've successfully disappeared several other trolls with similar afflictions. This one was quiet for a while and is attempting to rip us off again for his own ego gratification. Let me know if he becomes a nuisance. We can target him for aversion therapy, too.
That is because the Troll's observations are not relevant, but it is a useful tool for underscoring the fact that their are people posting on forums whose primary function is to break up discussions and try to prevent rational discourse. They are at worst an annoyance, much like finding that rats are crawling out of the sewer, and at best an amusement which inadvertently help to destroy their own spin. Definitely diversion and disruption IMHO. If you keep on the high road, with an occasional bon mot, they have little effect other than to underscore the presence of an active disinformation campaign. They only become a problem when you have multiple disruption points on a forum. Which reminds me - I visited El Pee the other day and noticed that 'botsands is still attacking me months after Goldi-Pox banned me for pointing out that she is a hypocritical liar (at no time did I violate any of El Pee's rules on the thread upon which she banned me - thus making it apparent that she was simply purging people whom she could not out debate or refute). The 'bots have to have something or someone to attack and I left enough of a mark on them that they still find it necessary to attack me at this late date. The point of mentioning that is not inflate myself but to underscore how much the 'bots/disruptors/PsyOperators rely upon attacking people personally to stem intelligent discussion, and that if you rely upon putting forth true statements they cannot refute then you become a perpetual target. The PsyOperators have to keep lying every day to keep their lie in place, and they require numbers which here they don't have. The truth is so much more powerful than their lies that they have to attack it at every opportunity. He is as a fly looking for a comfortable stool. I think you have hit the point though in that 'bots/PsyOperators/Hasbarfa do not long last here because they are out matched on multiple fronts. That probably is one of the things that holds down the viewership here as 'bots are not tolerated and unlike LF there is not an insane tolerance for disruptors as "having a right to speak". They are fun to engage and embarass, as much as low I.Q. paid disruptor can be embarassed, as an amusement, and as foils to point out how bankrupt the official spin is.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LOL! She is a serious asshole. I read what she did to you, and she no longer makes any pretense at anything but house mother for the insane system thugs. They may dominate their little piece of the virtual universe but believe me, they know what the loss of cred cost them. They're just another Hale-Bopp type of death cult now.
Would you two fuckwits stop obsessing over me and explain why you think the quotes are new.
They're all quotes from ae911truth.org. They aren't new, idiot.
You two wouldn't be confusing "irascible" and "unconvinced" with trolling behavior, would you? We need more critical thinking, not less.
Actually I find ill-mannered, boorish, and snide to be better descriptors. One does not have to behave as a troll to make a point or raise a question - particularly if one is interested in debating or questioning a point.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
How about petty.
I did get to have some fun though. I had, had a hard drive crash a couple of months prior to my banning and had opened a temporary account under a different pseudonym as an interim measure since I was having trouble contacting Goldi-Schmuck. So, I went back a couple of months later and, discovering that the temp account had not been closed, posted a scathing opus just to twist her whiskers. It only lasted about 6 hours but that was long enough to accumulate something over 100 posts on the thread. To make it more insulting I posted it first here, then on the "hallowed" "Breaking News" Ticker with the source link coming back here. Goldi-lard ass has no credibility left and she is a laughing stock because of her stupidity, arrogance, and hypocrisy. Stupidity and arrogance are not a winning combination. I do find it amusing to pop over every now and then to look at the shills who control the site. Goldi's first allegiance is to Israhell and exposing that was one of the accomplishments of my stay. She can no longer hide behind calling herself an American because she is not. She is an Israeli residing in America. Although as a convert I find it amusing as well that Israhell is showing its colors again by making it difficult to impossible for converts to be recognized as Jews. I find it sad for her, in a sick way, because she so wants to be a Jew and belong but a percentage will never accept her and she knows that. It is a cold comfort.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Very few of us ended up here because we were apt to be polite. If you don't like other people making remarks that question your assumptions, you could always take your discussion to PMs.
If someone uses disinformation/disruption tactics I will call them on it. If someone treats me with common civility I will respond in kind. I don't flame people for the fun of it nor to disrupt a thread. When someone does then I will make note of it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
It must be awful to be so universally despised for her part in a losing battle.
"...and somewhere out there was the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
The short answer is no - other than they have to be relatively recent i.e., the last 2 years or more recent. I've been following the evolution of the discrediting of the 911 "Official Fairy Tale" and the slow recognition by more and more people that 911 WAS an INSIDE job. I've been following the issue since about a month after the day with the recognition that the towers were pulled via explosive demolition. I've followed the debate and those who have come forward and the quotes in the thread article are largely Johnny-Come-Latelys. I'm glad to see them on board but my comment stands: Where were their balls 4 years ago?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I suspect it is so. Not only that, whether she will admit it even to herself, she is on the side of people who are no better than the inhuman Nazi beasts she exscoriates. Look at what an Israel Supporter has to support: Genocide via murder and slow starvation. Historically, and perhaps present, the use of biological warfare against noncombatants. The use of White Phosphorous on noncombatants - including children. The dehumanization of others in order to more easily murder them. The murder and incarceration of children. Massive suppression of hundreds of thousands of people. The destruction of their livelihoods, their farms, and businesses. The support of aggressive wars on Israel's behalf which has cost the lives of, minimally since their are repeated leaks that the numbers being under reported by at least 2/3, 4,000 plus American kids, and the cold blooded murder of several million people between Pipelinestan and Eyerack. No, the load of blackness and evil on her conscience must be an awful pain. However, she has earned every bit of it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I think you're misunderstanding the motives of nobody. Er. Who's on first?
These aren't new quotes. You're saying you haven't checked the list over at the site I mentioned in the last two years and you remember which ones were already there? I doubt that's what's happened. Give it up. Look, how are they supposed to notify you of their stand in a timely manner if you haven't checked the site in over two years? Are they supposed to go on the Today Show, send you an e-mail, what??
You are simply trying to manufacture a gotcha. You have made an assertion. It is incumbent upon you to prove your point. You know you can't and I know you can't. You are simply engaging in disinformation tactics and are simply attempting to disparage the point without providing one shred of proof to support your contention. That is a standard disinformation tactic. Ref.: Twenty Five Ways to Suppress The Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You made a blunder, I noticed it. Three people in fact, all acting as if they knew the quotes were all recent and all finding fault based on that. It's a natural question I asked myself first - what makes these people believe they know when all the quotes were made. Are they all really following all the websites that closely? It this a concert, a three-part harmony I'm messing up? Was a consensus reached on what sort of flimsy excuse would be used to criticize all these people and anyone else who might be slow to join? It's a curious thing. Not one of you three is risking your professional reputation on 9/11 like these people, as far as I can see at the moment. If you aren't in the building engineering trade then maybe you have no idea what's at risk.
My initial question was simply my way of inviting comments. For instance, BushCo's lame duck status may have energized some folks who were otherwise afraid to go on the offensive. It wasn't that long ago that the fear was as thick as a pea soup fog in America and the enemy was still convinced that they could label and kookify people like Charlie Sheen and still win the battle in the media they control. But now we're much closer to a point where the MSM conspirators would simply blackout new 9/11 truth seekers or, if the voice is that of a too famous celeb or politician then the media likely report it but let it pass without comment. The enemy is now so petrified that this is going to get away from their abilities to control us and the groundswell of voices demanding something other than the "too little too late" treatment that the JFK assassination received. After 35 years of trying to cork that bottle the media masters were forced to pretend that they too wanted a comprehensive review of the JFK murder. So, after allowing a full year for the shredding machines to finish tidying up and any other loose ends to be secured the media report revealed that the truth had to be one of only two possibilities; "Oswald did it" or, "Oswald acted alone." 9/11 is different. It can be proven that jet fuel fires won't bring down steel framed structures, and under no conditions other than sequentially triggered explosives (and possibly omitting all hardened load bearing bolts and instead installing bread sticks) could the desired visual effect ever be duplicated. So, the only hope is to stop people from talking about it. Good luck with that, all you ass kissing sellouts. The prep work is done and the doubts are there. Perhaps the time will come and 9/11 truth will resemble the tread of mighty armies whose time has come...."
"...and somewhere out there was the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Why do you find it necessary to engage in disinformation tactics? I guess I should have finished writing the obvious for the benefit of those who leap across the assumption gap then troll like Hell. Here we go. What took them so long? (to reprint these remarks in places where I and like minded others will see and discuss them?) It doesn't matter when they were first published in obscure trade publications or where ever. What matters is now, when the momentum is building like TOPSY thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt! HAH!
"...and somewhere out there was the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
I recall making a similar comment about some MIT prof a while back, but that's different because the MIT faculty had a large contribution to backing the official version. Perhaps that is what has you f-sticks all a-twitter. Useless nitwits.
What took them so long? (to reprint these remarks in places where I and like minded others will see and discuss them?) Who's them? There's only one author credited. You aren't very convincing, by the way.
Which it received. Amusingly enough I made my comment before reading yours, so we both followed the same path. Yes, I think the dam is leaking heavily, and as you point out, we have several potent lines of investigation which were not present for the Kennedy Hit Investigation. The trolls will no longer even attack on the facts trying disparage the obvious and proven data instead they just try cover it over like a cat hiding a turd - almost instinctively. What we get now, as opposed to a couple of years ago, are attacks on obscure or irrelevant points trying to simply divert the debate and turn it into a flame war. The problem is that the shills are low paid low I.Q. flunkies and when you pay for a minimum wage worker that is usually what you get. They are no better at flame wars than they were at deriding hard physical data. The presstitutes are still trying to black out the truth seekers, but much to their frustration, in the age of the internet they no longer have complete information control as when it all the nooze reporting was the three controlled networks, or the controlled large noozepapers. The Noozepapers are fighting to stay afloat as their circulation continues to plummet and most intelligent people no longer trust the major networks. So, we are making headway and the trolls may yet find themselves taking a ride in a "Tree Swing".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Agreed. And as you rightly imply much of the troll activity is from minions of the Marxist-Zionist State who see their Ox being gored by people being alerted to the 911 Inside Job in which Israeli elements were heavily involved. I've often wondered what the exact percentage of troll activity were Hasbarfa Israel First anti-american treasonous quisling slime or just Israelis?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Mearsheimer and Walt never said a thing about any 9/11 false-flag cover-up. That makes them lamers on the topic. They haven't even mentioned zionist-NWO false flagging in any other context either, as far as I know. They promulgate an appreciable amount of zionist-NWO propaganda in this way, IMO. That's why they get as much play as they do from the MSM. Of their many poison pills is their apparent assertion that AIPAC functions as a legitimate American lobby and not as an unregistered agent of a foreign state. I haven't read much of their stuff, I get this second-hand. Wouldn't surprise me if M&W do not mention the USS Liberty either, although a fair number of articles on the web combine the two subjects almost as if they do. I could be wrong on that last part, but the cynic in me is never disappointed when it comes to zionists. In any event, Houndclown's lameness agenda is showing quite plainly. You guys are quite an act.
Well said. To those of us who have had newspaper columns under our own names in the past, anonymous cowards shilling for the puppeteers are simply unworthy of anyone's time or consideration. It takes zero courage to snipe anonymously, and intellect devoid of character is a tool of the evil doers, the very beasts we're targeting for exposure and elimination. Although you've done a yeoman's job of pointing out that the troll is standing in quicksand, the fact is, in a meat world debate he wouldn't dare reveal his loyalties or the hands he licks and he's received more attention than he's entitled to already. SO, I don't cross swords with anyone who wouldn't stand their ground in a live gathering. The internet actually disguises demented dwarves and obscures that which would automatically preclude them from ever having the support of a live audience where their agenda and defects would be exposed for all to see. People like you and I are natural leaders in public discussions while trolls and their masters can only conspire against us from their cowardly hides. I see no reason to afford them any more attention than they'd be entitled to if they showed their kinky haired, swarthy selves in public.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
I see no reason to afford them any more Very well said.
Thank you for the kind words. It occurred to me that one of the few remaining tactics they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance - like we didn't already know it. You are quite right in that they are mentally deformed, twisted, and debilitated shrills, but they do serve one useful purpose - as ineffectual foils to illustrate both their presence and what that implies. They do fear us because we are much more effective than they are, are much brighter (not to give myself "airs" but it is simply a factual statement - intelligent people do not generally become criminals), and have a weapon which their lies cannot neutralize - the truth.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No idea what you're talking about, don't care if you're a retired whore, you have all the marking of a zionist in drag.
I really don't care what a bunch of asshole pig thugs think, no matter how big their gang is or how long and hard they've been working on their creds here or anywhere.
You are simply making an ass out of yourself, confident that you have enough pull with others here to carry it off. Chummy bunch of fakes acting just like pigs.
Maybe you're a zio-nut with no context flacking for M&W.
Dawg, you are, without a doubt, the most ridiculously inept liar I have ever encountered here or anywhere else in recent memory.
Pure projection. It's pig-speak, you're inverting the truth while ganging up on me for asking the questions you refuse to answer in a sensible manner. You have no explanation for why you say you know how old the quotes are and none either for suggesting that they are not yet two years old. But there you are insinuating they're all suspiciously late, and you know exactly when they all were made. "Constant surveillance" indeed. It's the odor wafting off houndclown, you and others here. You might want to stop sniffing yourself in public. Who's the ex-newspaper journalist houndclown is blabbering about? Did an ex- journalist here write a newspaper column about 9/11? No need to explain if you'd rather not say. You know what they say about US journalists often having to work two jobs and all.
Do you guys hear a buzzing sound?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
These guys are the pain in the ass I knew I'd find doing the gang-up gatekeeping here, like every demonstration has its gang of plants, and I'm now convinced they've figured out a way to give everyone else a different version of this thread than the one I'm seeing. There's no other explanation for why they think it's not obvious to many people what they're up to.
I think people should note two things: 1. The speed with which the next post following mine came. 2. That the poster insists on attacking people personally and has never in the thread posted anything which supports its alleged point. Twenty Five Ways to Suppress The Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
These clowns apparently are actually now practically bragging that they have a way of knowing when I'm looking at the site and they often put a post near the top of the front page when I check here, is the thought I had. Needless to say, they suggest I'm checking the site too frequently for their taste while they banter about with various atttacks on me.
This is where you started getting personal and inverting the facts with me. Right off the bat. Before that it was you guys attacking the people quoted in the article, me questioning you on it and suggesting the appearance of what you were all doing was not good, and me correcly pointing out where one quote literally made no sense as written. From there you never backed down and merely compounded your lies. It must be your job. I feel obliged to point out your capacity for inverting facts with spectacular efficiency. Again you appear confident that others here have a different version of the thread from mine. Now you're trying to keep me occupied and waste my time.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I simply commented then, as now, about where were these guys several years ago and they were nowhere in evidence. You challenged that comment, with ill grace, but as of yet have presented nothing to support your Argumentum Ad Hominem attacks.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
When a person asserts something while they're attacking someone's motives and another person questions the assertion, it is up to the asserter to support the assertion as best as possible. You apparently attempted that when you weren't busy lying about me and I've informed you, though not in so many words, that your explanation is full of incongruities. In the meantime you've continued your efficient cut-paste aggressively-inversional lying campaign as if you've got quite the playbook for this approach, and you've avoided the incongruities. That's about where we stand, minus my complaints about the downright nastiness of it all interjected here and there. I'm done with you for at least few hours now, I hope.
Thank you.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Worth repeating. The good news is, if we bozo him and his bait remains untouched then he'll soon realize that the virtual world is a cold, lonely, desolate place for a man without a country. I only have to read your replies to picture his ugly troll ass, and if you stop replying he ceases to exist for me.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
LMAO! I don't see any of his trollisms at all and I'm laffing my ass off at him! Too funny! He started out thinking of himself as a really clever gadfly, and now he's desperately crying out for someone, ANYONE to read and reply point by point to his frantic dewdie! We got him right where we want him now, boys.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LMAO! It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again. They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Would they walk into our campfire and demand a green stick and a marshmallow to roast? "Oh yeah, Mister Trolly Boy, you're just too clever by half!" I'm gonna try not bust out laffing so I can write this. He thinks that the sheer, crushing weight of his intellect is all the invitation he needs! BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH!
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
I did not assert that converts could not use "the law of return" what I asserted is that some Jews, per recent discussions in Israel - particularly among the more Orthodox, do not and will not recognize converts as true Jews. Search on it, there has been some degree of controversy, some of it from senior Israeli Rabbis, militating toward not recognizing converts and some discussion of no longer accepting converts, or at least some converts, under "the law of return". Rabbinical Court Puts Thousands of Converts in Legal Limbo "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Thanks for the links, and clarification of your post's meaning.
They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Could it be that they are not as witty or intelligent as they think they are? Someone who comes in swinging and talking trash is, on any forum, going to find that the reception is less than cordial. Besides you don't have to use profanity to pin someone's ears back - I'm not impressed, just the opposite really, by someone who as to rely on gutter terms and personal insults to assert their questionable manhood. It just tells me that they have no class and likely no brains. I am not averse to having a new kid on the block, but some of em' need to be larned' a few manners.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No problemo. Thank you for the gentlemanly reply. As an aside, despite our disagreements and the needling I have given you on Oh'Bummer, I do like and respect you. Just wanted you to know that.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
Let's just call it, and the clever animated gifs, what they are: SPAM in the service of BS.
For the people who matter, anything but the most accurate, and peer-reviewed of criticisms, will simply be dismissed as another type of disinformation. It seems that you're just asking for clarification.
Explain which comments you were referring to and justify your criticism.
It is called posting a reference. I long ago ceased wasting time doing a point by point refutation for people who insist upon using fallacious reasoning. I stated an opinion and observation and got a snide attack upon it. I responded by disecting the attack. Nothing unusual in that. My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread and thus my short fuse. If my stated opinion is incorrect then correct it with sound logic and support of your reasoning. Otherwise I will treat it as an unsupported assertion, a logical fallacy, and if couched in insulting or uncivil language such as an implied attack and/or accusation will treat it as an attack and respond appropriately to the originator.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I'm familiar with n's posting style. He's not going to go out of his way to make you feel welcome.
I don't know buckeye from a hole in the ground. Your alleged dissecting of my remarks consists entirely of self-serving insulting characterizations, not that I care what you think.
Your comment #5 which you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical. If you have a difference state it forthrightly in a civil manner - citing your complete thought. You might then find that even if someone disagrees they will not mistake what you are saying for sniping.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
More of what I am talking about. I declined to respond to a whole series of your sophomoric sniping and yet you continued it until I decided to take notice again. If you want to scream for attention stop whining when you get it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
So? I'd rather the person had made more sense, hence my regret. My criticism is valid, and you haven't bothered to discuss it on the merits except to throw insults at me for making it. My criticism is not a character assault, as with you calling all the people quoted "yellow-bellied." Face it, you're a truly proud hypocrite. Learn to live with the consequences.
How do you supposedly know this? Many are building engineers, they may have learned what they know about thermite from Jones. They are supposed to weigh in on a BYU personel issue involving a WTC chemical analysis/thermate hypothesis? How? How do they even know that the question of whether Jones is right or not was truly at issue there? Maybe he was dismissed entirely for accusing the 'wrong' people of doing something those people actually did, in which case these people would be wasting their time.
You are free to disagree with my opinion. That is certainly your right, but when you make an assertion implying malice when it was simply pique that more people have not had the guts to state the obvious i.e., that the Official 911 Fairy Tale is so full of holes and inconsistencies that anyone who is intellectually honest, and looks at the data, cannot but conclude that the Official Fairy Tale is wildly inconsistent with the observed data. Too many people follow the herd and will acquiesce to evil rather than be seen to be out of step with the herd. My comment was intended as much praise for those who had the courage to stand up despite personal risk and state that "the emperor has no clothes" in the face of withering assaults and attacks upon their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor (ring any bells). And I still stand by my comment that the flood of new converts is a relatively recent phenomenon because I was arguing the case against the Bushbots and other sundry shills two years ago (and several years before) and it was very hard to find much in the way of professionals who were willing to be courageous enough to stand up and be counted - something the shills took great delight in pointing out over and over. It is a result of the trail blazed by those courageous few that these "Johnny-come-latelies" now, at this late date, have found the intestinal fortitude to stand up and state the obvious "the emperor has no clothes" and 911 WAS an INSIDE JOB. What the evidence supports is controlled demolition, and has since very early on, not "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" crashing airplanes into buildings. The Aircraft were the diversion for the the slight of hand i.e., the apparent cause that was not the cause of the building collapses.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Look, have I been notably unfair with you here, especially considering the context I'm having to operate within? You're better off ignoring me as opposed to trying the skunk-blast routine.
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition. The "official story" is a joke.
The "official story" is a joke. Here is the VIDEO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) Here is the VIDEO The evidence was in the public domain before it was made acceptable by Dr. Jones. He simply took it to a higher level of rigor. There were multiple excellent analyses on the Web already - one that stands out was the Stochiometric analysis done by the poster "Mad Max" which went through point by point and established with mathematical rigor that there was insufficient fuel on the aircraft to generate enough heat to weaken the structures. The same poster did several other analyses but that one in particular was ironclad and has never been refuted by any of the varied shills and bots I've debated. It was available online at least by 2003 if not before (I don't recall when I first ran into it but it was posted very widely). No, the evidence accumulated by Dr. Jones was noted and commented on before Dr. Jones published his monograph. Others could have just as easily done the same work, but did not. Dr. Jones lost his Professorship as a result, but stands vindicated as NO ONE has been able to refute his work. However, and again, he was not the first just the most prominent to speak up.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Gee, I wish I had said that!
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
I do not believe that the accuracy of Jones' scientific analysis was even at issue there, nor was the question of whether there was or wasn't (as the cliche goes) a 'controlled demolition.' Someone encouraged Jones to make an accusation and it was videotaped, IIRC. I believe it was something such as that which got the ball rolling at BYU. That's when the two-faced corporate-mind political heat had an excuse to make itself felt, AFAICT. FWIW, he made a highly logical inference in assigning blame, however it was viewed in a politically-savvy (regrettable euphemism) manner as lacking proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least that is my best guess of the ultimate issue. You're grasping.
The "official story" is a joke. Agreed. 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
This is why they have to attack the messenger.
Exactly. When his analysis is ignored and the attacks are delivered against Dr. Jones the man rather than to refute his work - then you know his analysis is damn near bullet proof.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Thanks. It's all my Mom's fault - she instilled a love of language in her first born (and gardening and cooking too).
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You're grasping. Dr. Jones first drew attention with publication of his original monograph and was only later drawn out to state his opinion that it implied that it had to have been prepared in advance. He got handed his golden walking papers because he was tenured and they couldn't really fire him, and his monograph could not be refuted, so he was forced out the door with a buttload of money to keep him from suing the University. By all appearances it was outside political pressure. BYU receives a lot of grants from da Feds and threatening those grants applied pressure to the University Administration which lacked the guts to tell the Feds to take their dirty money and stick it where the sun don't shine (that is inference clearly labeled as such). So, he was given a lot of money to go away. I suspect the calculation was that his being relieved of his Professorship would shut him up and destroy his credibility. Neither occurred as it was obvious to the astute as to what was really going on and a lot of people made it a point to say as much. Play Again?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
His problems started after a talk-show guy encouraged him to blame the government while he was on a radio show, IIRC. I think it was also videotaped, FWIW. Is there a credible article somewhere that sourcedly agrees with what you say about why Jones was let go (i.e that BYU disagreed with his scientific analysis for lack of support from people such as in the building trade)?
Just logic my good young man. Jones was a tenured Professor with a sound scientific reputation. No University is going to mess with somebody like that, even if they don't like what he is saying, because of Academic Freedom and that Tenure means he cannot be fired except for cause - and the causes are very few - buggering the Bursar in the Commons might qualify. As well a goodly number of his colleagues stood up for him when the Administration tried to shut him up. When he came out of the office, with his Lawyer, the day that he left BYU, while his comments were a bit cryptic (no doubt one of the conditions of the settlement was his remaining silent on the "arrangement") he was obviously pleased and said so - thus one can reasonably infer he left with a "Golden Handshake". If you want to do the research feel free, but I am not going to be your Research Librarian.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
"In the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East. Besides worries about his accusations, Carri Jenkins, a spokesman for the university, said BYU was also concerned that Jones's work on September 11 had not been published in credible peer-reviewed journals. Jones edits the Journal of 9/11 Studies, an online collection of articles that has included his work." www.us news.com/usnews/new...s/060911/11conspiracy.htm The peer review issue's a politically-motivated attack posing as scientific reason. In any event, there's nothing there for these people to write their opinions to BYU about, is there? He blamed Bush and that's where the SHTF, these people were irrelevant. It was pure politics. He failed to disprove the notion that Bush is too incredibly stupid to have had anything to do with it. So what's your reason for saying they're all "yellow-bellied" now?
Your quote is fine, if one wants to grant U.S. Snooze World Distorts credibility it doesn't deserve, but your reasoning is non-sequitur.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Support your allegation that the testimony of these people could reasonably have been expected to have had some influence in the BYU hearing, else admit your attack on all of these peoples' characters was entirely subjective, lacking a definite rational basis.
Your Strawman is getting a bit threadbare. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Support your assertions, or drop them and the complaints predicated upon them made against the characters of all the people quoted.
#2. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#3. To: TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, All (#0)
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#5. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
#6. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
what took them so long
#7. To: nobody, TwentyTwelve, all (#5)
(Edited)
I don't want to be critical here,
#8. To: Original_Intent (#7)
#9. To: nobody (#4)
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
#10. To: Original_Intent (#7)
caustic innuendoes
#11. To: nobody (#4)
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
#12. To: Original_Intent (#9)
(Edited)
#13. To: nobody, TwentyTwelve, all (#10)
caustic innuendoes
#14. To: nobody, HOUNDDAWG, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#12)
I noticed Houndclown started the concept of "all quotes are fresh" and you contributed. There's really no point in asking you if you know how fresh the quotes are. It's obvious you have no idea.
#15. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU
#16. To: Original_Intent (#14)
#17. To: Original_Intent, nobody, HOUNDDAWG, christine, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#14)
#18. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
(Edited)
#19. To: Original_Intent (#9)
(Edited)
#20. To: RickyJ, FormerLurker, wudidiz, all (#18)
What took these cowards so long to come out of hiding?
#21. To: RickyJ, TwentyTwelve (#18)
Americans have been lied to from day one, and the main stream media will never report the truth about this, especially since they are an active participant in the disinformation campaign for the government. If they reported the truth about it now it would also implicate them for putting out known lies to start with. They will cover for their sources until hell freezes over.
#22. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
#23. To: RickyJ (#22)
(Edited)
keeping a low profile
#24. To: Original_Intent (#21)
#25. To: RickyJ (#22)
#26. To: Original_Intent (#21)
jerk their Broadcast licenses
#27. To: RickyJ, nobody (#22)
#28. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
#29. To: Original_Intent (#21)
their feet are held to the fire
#30. To: Original_Intent, RickyJ (#25)
Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals.
#31. To: TwentyTwelve (#30)
#32. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Heaven forfend
#33. To: Original_Intent (#25)
Not only was Jones not shut up he has a article or two due out in major Peer Reviewed Journals.
#34. To: TwentyTwelve, christine, Original_Intent (#17)
#35. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody, all (#34)
Great replies fellas, but, I didn't bother because the relevance of The Troll's observation has yet to be established.
I think you're correct in assuming that either he is attempting to deflect away from the subject or, is in desperate need of some validation.
I know the difference between wit and venom and responding to the latter would favor the unworthy.
Let me know if he becomes a nuisance. We can target him for aversion therapy, too.
#36. To: Original_Intent (#35)
Goldi-Pox
#37. To: Original_Intent (#35)
#38. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
Christ, what took them so long (to say this)?
#39. To: Original_Intent, HOUNDDAWG, nobody (#35)
#40. To: buckeye, HOUNDDAWG, nobody (#39)
You two wouldn't be confusing "irascible" and "unconvinced" with trolling behavior, would you? We need more critical thinking, not less.
#41. To: Original_Intent (#40)
ill-mannered, boorish, and snide
#42. To: HOUNDDAWG (#36)
I read what she did to you, and she no longer makes any pretense at anything but house mother for the insane system thugs.
They may dominate their little piece of the virtual universe but believe me, they know what the loss of cred cost them.
They're just another Hale-Bopp type of death cult now.
#43. To: Original_Intent (#40)
Actually I find ill-mannered, boorish, and snide to be better descriptors.
#44. To: buckeye (#43)
#45. To: Original_Intent (#42)
#46. To: nobody (#4)
Just curious, do you have any idea when these statements were originally written, not just quoted in the article?
#47. To: HOUNDDAWG (#45)
It must be awful to be so universally despised for her part in a losing battle.
#48. To: Original_Intent (#44)
If someone uses disinformation/disruption tactics I will call them on it.
#49. To: Original_Intent (#46)
(Edited)
they have to be relatively recent i.e., the last 2 years or more recent
#50. To: nobody, buckeye, TwentyTwelve, HOUNDDAWG, Wudidiz, all (#49)
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
Why do you find it necessary to engage in disinformation tactics?
#51. To: Original_Intent (#50)
(Edited)
You are simply trying to manufacture a gotcha.
#52. To: Original_Intent (#50)
#53. To: Original_Intent (#50)
#54. To: Original_Intent (#50)
#55. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
Here we go.
#56. To: HOUNDDAWG (#52)
My initial question was simply my way of inviting comments.
#57. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
(Edited)
It doesn't matter when they were first published in obscure trade publications or where ever. What matters is now, when the momentum is building like TOPSY thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt!
#58. To: Original_Intent (#57)
(Edited)
the momentum is building like TOPSY thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt! Agreed.
#59. To: Original_Intent (#56)
The trolls will no longer even attack on the facts trying disparage the obvious and proven data instead they just try cover it over like a cat hiding a turd - almost instinctively. What we get now, as opposed to a couple of years ago, are attacks on obscure or irrelevant points trying to simply divert the debate and turn it into a flame war. The problem is that the shills are low paid low I.Q. flunkies and when you pay for a minimum wage worker that is usually what you get. They are no better at flame wars than they were at deriding hard physical data.
#60. To: HOUNDDAWG, Original_Intent (#59)
People like you (Original_Intent) and I are natural leaders in public discussions while trolls and their masters can only conspire against us from their cowardly hides.
#61. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#59)
#62. To: HOUNDDAWG (#59)
To those of us who have had newspaper columns under our own names in the past
#63. To: TwentyTwelve (#60)
(Edited)
#64. To: Original_Intent (#50)
(Edited)
You are simply trying to manufacture a gotcha.
#65. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
Maybe they were waiting for Mearsheimer and Walt to weaken the Zionists' stranglehold on the minds of Americans before acting.
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
Here we go. What took them so long? (to reprint these remarks in places where I and like minded others will see and discuss them?)
#67. To: Original_Intent (#61)
(Edited)
they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance
#68. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, all (#59)
#69. To: All (#68)
#70. To: All, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody (#69)
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
#71. To: All (#70)
The speed with which the next post following mine came.
#72. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Heaven forfend that we might mistake your caustic innuendoes for criticism.
#73. To: All, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody (#71)
#74. To: nobody (#72)
This is where you starrt getting personal and inverting the facts with me. Before that it was you guys attacking the people quoted in the article. From there you never backed down and merely compounded your lies. It must be your job.
#75. To: Original_Intent (#74)
(Edited)
#76. To: TwentyTwelve (#60)
#77. To: Original_Intent (#61)
It occurred to me that one of the few remaining tactics they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance - like we didn't already know it. You are quite right in that they are mentally deformed, twisted, and debilitated shrills, but they do serve one useful purpose - as ineffectual foils to illustrate both their presence and what that implies. They do fear us because we are much more effective than they are, are much brighter (not to give myself "airs" but it is simply a factual statement - intelligent people do not generally become criminals), and have a weapon which their lies cannot neutralize - the truth.
#78. To: Original_Intent (#73)
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#78)
#80. To: Original_Intent (#79)
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.
#81. To: Original_Intent (#42)
Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#82. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
#83. To: Original_Intent (#82)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#84. To: HOUNDDAWG (#80)
It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again.
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#83)
#86. To: nobody, Original_Intent (#50)
#87. To: buckeye (#86)
O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#88. To: nobody (#87)
#89. To: Original_Intent (#7)
We never mistake snide comments for mere criticism.
#90. To: buckeye, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, nobody (#86)
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#91. To: Original_Intent (#90)
#92. To: Original_Intent (#90)
My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread
#93. To: nobody (#89)
#94. To: nobody (#92)
#95. To: Original_Intent (#93)
(Edited)
you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical
#96. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
#97. To: nobody (#95)
#98. To: Original_Intent (#97)
(Edited)
You are free to disagree with my opinion.
#99. To: Original_Intent, nobody, all (#97)
...What the evidence supports is controlled demolition, and has since very early on...
#100. To: Original_Intent, nobody (#99)
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition.
Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) (date unknown)
#101. To: Original_Intent (#97)
#102. To: nobody (#96)
How do you supposedly know this? Many are building engineers, they may have learned what they know about thermite from Jones. They are supposed to weigh in on a BYU personel issue involving a WTC chemical analysis/thermate hypothesis? How?
#103. To: Original_Intent (#90)
If my stated opinion is incorrect then correct it with sound logic and support of your reasoning. Otherwise I will treat it as an unsupported assertion, a logical fallacy, and if couched in insulting or uncivil language such as an implied attack and/or accusation will treat it as an attack and respond appropriately to the originator.
#104. To: Original_Intent (#102)
(Edited)
#105. To: TwentyTwelve (#100)
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition.
#106. To: Original_Intent (#102)
..as NO ONE has been able to refute his (Dr. Jones) work.
#107. To: Original_Intent (#105)
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
#108. To: TwentyTwelve (#106)
This is why they have to attack the messenger.
#109. To: HOUNDDAWG (#103)
#110. To: nobody (#104)
I do not believe the accuracy of Jones' scientific analysis was at issue there, nor was the question of whether there was (as the cliche goes) a controlled demolition. Someone encouraged Jones to make an accusation and it was videotaped, IIRC. I believe it was something such as that which got the ball rolling at BYU. That's when the two-faced corporate-mind political heat had an excuse to make itself felt, AFAICT. FWIW, he made a highly logical inference in assigning blame, however it was viewed in a politically-savvy (regrettable euphemism) manner as lacking proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least that is my best guess of the ultimate issue.
#111. To: Original_Intent (#110)
(Edited)
#112. To: nobody (#111)
Is there a credible article somewhere that sourcedly agrees with what you say on why Jones was let go?
#113. To: Original_Intent (#110)
(Edited)
#114. To: nobody (#113)
#115. To: Original_Intent (#114)
(Edited)
credibility
#116. To: nobody (#115)
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. ...
...As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness. ...
#117. To: Original_Intent (#116)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest