• 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.

AE911Truth Watch

Minadin said:
In Architect's case, he's provided the moderators / administrators with documentation of his credentials. I'm prepared to do the same if need be, but I certainly don't see any reason why any of us should be beholden to provide personal information to you.

On a skeptic's forum, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my posts in either case.
Click to expand...
Talk is cheap.
Put up or .....................
 
LastChild

(and any other interested parties)

This debate about the consensus or lack thereof seems to pollute many threads. I have made a thread to discuss it. I would appreciate it if we could meet there, and remain civil, and wrangle this out once and for all.

I can't link cos my post count was condemned to AAH, but it's called "the doubt about the consensus"

If you would indulge me?
 
Christopher7,

You didn't answer my question.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

In response you posted some names of people who are either completely unqualified, or have posted their research only on kook websites. :boggled:

Good God, man - Torif Wolf, the nurse? Danny Jowenko - who agrees with us more than he does with you? Charles Pegelow, the oil rig worker? Richard "pyroclastic flow" gage? Haiwa?

Try again.
 
Arus808 said:
actually you haven't.
Click to expand...
Actually, i have.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Anders B[FONT=&quot]örkman, [/FONT][SIZE=-1]M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer

Jeff King, MIT engineer
[/SIZE]
[FONT=&quot]Torin Wolf demolitions expert

Danny Jowenko

[/FONT]Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

Patriots question WTC7
[FONT=&quot]http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret)
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lt. Col. Paul F. Getty, DDS (ret)
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army[/FONT][FONT=&quot]David L. Griscom, PhD
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lon J. Waters, PhD Mathematics
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Robert David Steele
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Enver Masud, BS EE, MS OR [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Operations Research), PE
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering [/FONT]

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...or_republi.htm

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Tuesday February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn PE,"Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"


 The list is long and growing.

Despite claims like:
Architect
The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.
 
Christopher7 said:
Post the names.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play games with your arbitrary standard. If you can't understand the point we're making here then I'm not sure if you're really qualified to discuss this at all. There are, after all, some minimum requirements. You managed to find your way to this forum and complete the sign-in process so you evidently have some cognitive abilities, but any hopes I had of anything beyond that are quickly fading. Perhaps you should spend more time with those who are of a similar cognitive level rather than posting where you just don't fit in. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to guide you to those places.
 
thanks proving again, that nothing backs up your claims.

Please provide a link to anyone of those "people" on that list, of a peer reviewed paper, that they have submitted to a RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety.

Otherwise, all you have is pure conjecture and are appealing to authority.
 
Ah, I see. Even if we were to post the list of contributers to NIST (which has been done numerous times on this forum) or ANY other expert, all Chris has to do is qualify it with "I meant the ones not controlled by Bush" and there ya go. Instant woo woo circuit breaker. Like others have said--PATHETIC

BS. I'm not going to waste my time on a puerile debate tactic. This is right up there with claiming any evidence presented that supports the official story as not allowed because it could have been faked.

This is tantamount to Chris putting his fingers in his hears and saying LA LA LA.
 
Arus808 said:
thanks proving again, that nothing backs up your claims.

Please provide a link to anyone of those "people" on that list, of a peer reviewed paper, that they have submitted to a RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety.
Click to expand...
Conjecture?

Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.
Please
 
Christopher7 said:
...
No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.
Click to expand...

What about R. Mackey or RW Guinn?

Real names. Real experts.

There are others here who use their real names, but that's just two off the top of my head.
 
Christopher7 said:
Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.
Click to expand...

Yes. Doesn't respectability matter to you?
 
Christopher7 said:
Conjecture?

Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.
Please
Click to expand...

I think what we're after is more than just a statement. I think what Arus was asking for is a reasoned, detailed scientific or engineering paper that contains maths and stuff which supports these assertions that this list of so called experts have made.
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.
Click to expand...

Why would the engineering community go out of their way to make statements when no one is asking for them? The "truth" movement has no credibility to ask for anything and no one else finds any reason to.
 
twinstead said:
Ah, I see. Even if we were to post the list of contributers to NIST (which has been done numerous times on this forum) or ANY other expert, all Chris has to do is qualify it with "I meant the ones not controlled by Bush" and there ya go.
Click to expand...
You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Dr Quintere: "“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ....... by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
 
Christopher7 said:
You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Dr Quintere: "“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ....... by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
Click to expand...
What does Dr Quintiere say brought done the towers. You can say it.
 
Christopher7 said:
You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can say the contributors support it.
Their credibility and professional reputations are on the line.
They would make it very well known if they did not support NIST's findings.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.
Click to expand...

Chris, are you - like LastChild - dumb enough to think that the contributors don't back up the official story?

Yes, apparently you are judging by the fact that you cite Quintere - who argues against your demolition nonsense even more than NIST does.

You're pretty desperate, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom