• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidJames said:
I felt much the same way then the dufus's felt c0rbin was me. I felt good, not sure how c0rbin though felt though...:D
Click to expand...


I am honored to be counted among my "graduating class" in this forum. If you notice our inception dates and their relevance to this topic, you are of two camps 1) It is too many coincidences to ignore. We are obviously nWo clone troopers itching to tread on the freedoms of those who question the Great Owl, or 2) we share a birthdate into the world of critical thinking that happens to coincide with a tragedy of national proportions.

Hat's off to you!
 
My First and Last Post over at the LC Forums in 3 Months

Well, I got this one up, we'll see if it stays up. My suspension ended earlier today.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??
 
I am afraid I am worthless when it comes to details. In fact, I try to stay away from arguments about airplane specifics or therMATE vs therMITE.

I approach the 9/11 Conspiracy from a 30,000 ft distance with questions like: "Why is 9/11 necessary for BushCo to aquire more gold or power?" or "These guys are savvy geo-political business men, isn't a stunt like 9/11 a little risky or expensive to try and pull off?"

So, no help in the "expertise" realm.
 
If a lawyer calls Expert Witness "A", who is an expert on topic "X", do you state than the testimony of Expert "A" is useless because the lawyer has no epertese in topic "X"....no...of course not, but this is the argument they are putting forward.
 
T.A.M. said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??
Click to expand...

Since I am a Registered, Professional Engineer, dealing daily with loads, strengths, stresses, and strains from both static and dynamic standpoints (although i don't do buildings any more), I reject any implications that S. ones and/or J. Woods are qualified at all. They have demonstrated a remarkable lack of expertise in real-world engineering and statics, much less kinetics.
 
T.A.M. said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??
Click to expand...
I claim no advanced knowledge or expertise in the science of the 9/11 events.

Without such a background, I have no illusions I can intelligently evaluate the analysis of experts with any confidence of being correct. I do believe if an overwhelming majority of the experts in a specific field agree on a conclusion based on direct analyses of the evidence, I am inclined to believe them as opposed to conclusions reached from unqualified people who reach said conclusions by observing pictures or videos.

Should some experts, qualified based on knowledge and experience in the related fields, bring their evidence forward, contradicting the majority, I will rethink my position.
 
T.A.M. said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone here claim to be an expert on any particular area of 9/11, and if so do you feel you have the credentials...

The reason I ask, is that someone I know states that the scholars are more qualified to talk on 9/11 then the JREF group. Now I don't totally disagree, that if someone here is spueing facts as their own, when they are not, then they are not qualified as an "Expert".

My argument over this is that while the "scholars" are academics, most of them are academics in fields unrelated to the nuts and bolts of 9/11. SO how does that make them any more qualified than anyone else to comment on the nuts and bolts of 9/11?

I think S. Jones and J. Woods are more qualified, certainly than me, but that is not the point. I believe when most people make arguements to Debunk 9/11 they are doing so with a reference paper or position from an "Expert", so it is that expert, whose opinion is being provided.

For instance, when it comes to WTC collapse, I think Professor Jones is more qualified than most here (I am guessing) to talk on it. However, if I bring up a peer reviewed paper by a group of MIT Civil and Structural Engineers to counter his arguements, is my evidence not more qualified than his (though i present it, the evidence is that of people with superior qualifications to he)?

Any thoughts??
Click to expand...

I'm by no means an expert on any area. My only credentials I guess are my engineering degree, and being able to read. I'm still working towards a job in engineering, so I can't call myself a professional engineer, and I don't work day-to-day in the field. But then I've very rarely come across an argument that was rocket science and required to much science powerTM to debunk.

I tried to make the point over at the LC forum that someone could only be counted as an expert, or used as a professional whatever, if they were actually using their knowledge towards the work they had produced. ie Just because I've got a degree in automotive engineering doesn't mean I can design a car with square wheels and say it works. It's the thought behind something that makes it expert opinion, not the name, or the letters after that name.
 
While I'm more along the lines of c0rbin's thinking, I'll point out that one need not necessarily be a gourmet chef to understand why the toast burned.

(Or some similarly flawed analogy)

Also, our good buddy Killtown made the news (obliquely):

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Killtown's blog links to hundreds of conflicting witness accounts and news stories, video and photos of suspicious damage and debris, and other 9/11 conspiracy blogs, attempting to build up a preponderance of doubt about the government's claims. Killtown posits whether the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives, and whether the Pentagon was hit by a missile. (The blogger identified only as Killtown could be reached only via e-mail. He or she agreed to be interviewed without ever revealing identity and never got in phone contact with this reporter.)

About Mrs. McClatchey's "End of Serenity," Killtown concludes that either the smoke plume in the photo came from a bomb blast closer to her house, or that the picture was faked by Mrs. McClatchey or the FBI. Killtown writes: "If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case, then Val, you got some splainin' to do!" He then proceeds to post her home address, phone number and personal e-mail information.
Click to expand...
 
Well They finally baned me for posing from :

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/

Which gives eyewitness testimony to what WTC7 looked like right be for the collapse.

I finished with:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good reading for everyone here. I cannot wait to hear the excuses for not reading it all. On second though I can wait. After all why read something that does not reinforce our view. Like being well rounded.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And as predicted the firemen just didn't know anyting and got it all wrong. Thoes people are useless.
 
Dylan Avery - 21 going on 6.
henhouse said:
In a PM to you, I asked you what you would say to Bernard Brown, Sr. if he showed up on your doorstep. You responded that you would ask him why he picked that particular day to take a day off to go golfing. So what ARE you implying?
Click to expand...
dylan avery said:
i'm not implying anything. it's just the first question that came to mind.
Click to expand...
Classic "I'm just asking questions".

Dylan - Grow up, you are in the real world. What you say, including the questions you ask, have an impact, they mean something. It's beyond just "asking questions". Six year olds "just ask questions", you're an adult. Do real research, consult real experts. Perform real analysis, but most important think things through. The longer you play "dumb", the more foolish you look. Stop pretending you don't have an agenda. Stop pretending you're just asking questions.

I suggest you stop asking questions and start finding answers. Real answers, the kind that are tangible, supportable, verifiable, ones that can be presented in a court of law. Because if what you're implying is true, that's where this will end up, but up to this point, you've got nothing, squat, zip. What you've got is laughable (if it were not so serious). It's junior high school level crap.
 
Dylan - Quit "asking questions" if you want to make accusations come out and make them, but be prepared to face the consequences if you cant back them up with solid evidence
 
::: Finishes reading the last 10 pages.... :::

Guess this is what happens in the crazy world of conspiracy folk. Skeptics forum closed, Dylan figures out Gravy is really a combination of anyone and everyone named "Mark", and he, Abby, and I "instigate" the crazies at GZ.

Hm.... back to my regularly scheduled vacation.
 
I just twisted my freaken ankle, so I have some time on my hands. Reading these last few pages of posts have had me in stiches(not literal).I respect all of you and your tenacity! It reminds of a book I read early nineties! It is called Take Down by Tsutomu Shimomura.Ever read it? It was about the take down of" The original Cyber Punk", Kevin Mitnick. Tomu got so annoyed with Mitnicks crap He took him down,in the prepube days of the net.If none of you have read it.Try it out.You are the next generation of Tomu.Great Friggen work. Not to mention how you do it with such humor.

Keep Smack'en Down Stoopid!
 
Dazed said:
To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?
Click to expand...

If those "squibs" were part of a controlled demolition, then the building would start to collapse at that point. It doesn't, thus no CD.

As Gravy pointed out in another post, the pressure isn't localized, it's fairly uniform. It's just looking for a weak spot to release the build-up. For whatever reason, those few windows were weaker than the others. It's sort of like that old saying, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

And as for the use of the word "squibs," I'd love to know if any of the Loizeauxs have ever used the word "squib." I've seen a couple of documentaries which featured them and IIRC they used the word "charge."

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
And as for the use of the word "squibs," I'd love to know if any of the Loizeauxs have ever used the word "squib." I've seen a couple of documentaries which featured them and IIRC they used the word "charge."

Steve S.
Click to expand...
AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a movie

there could be a second definition though
 
DylanAvery said:
the best he'll do is bring up my Jack Blood interview again. which I've already explained and apologized for.
Click to expand...


MarkyX said:
Dylan, if you are reading this, your statement had nothing to do with the lack of experience in media relations or that you were 'just a kid' (21 is an ADULT), but your lack of research.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I have this right. Dylan makes those comments, then claims that something he posts on his own forum saying how he was 'just a kid' constitues explaining and apologising? Did I miss something somewhere else? If not, then it's about time he made a more public apology, assuming he really believes that he was wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom