Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[beachnut]

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

You are telling lies. When will you find some evidence to support your lies? Never.

The papers are not propaganda you are a liar. Prove it! Sources! Now! You can't you will post more moronic lies and failed delusions about 911; your only skill on 911.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.

The wisest thing you can do now is to not reply. Your sub is sinking with each post and soon you will hit crush depth.

 

[tfk]

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

Others have posted a couple of links. IIRC, Gravy does have one also.

Here's a couple that might be redundant:

http://911science.googlepages.com/home
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

This page gives you Building Code Revisions based on NIST findings:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

The right way to figure this out & to find the references is to go thru an Engineering Citation Index using the NIST Report as a start point. This will give you first generation references.

Google Scholar is a serviceable citation index.
It produces 260 hits on [+"world trade center" +NIST +NCSTAR].
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+"world+trade+center"++NIST++NCSTAR&btnG=Search

If you check the "cited by" box under the titles, you'll find about 200 additional citations.

CiteSeerX comes back with 9700 references.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q="world+trade+center"+ncstar+nist.&submit=Search&sort=rel&ic=1

Bing comes back with 8400 hits.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=+"world+trade+center"+ncstar++nist.&go=&form=QBRE

Unfortunately, most online Citation Indices are pay sites. And not cheap.

So getting a comprehensive list would require a trip to the library for me.

While a bunch of these references (from Google scholar, Bing) are not going to be published papers, it is pretty clear that there is a boatload of research that has derived from the NIST reports.

Tom

 

[newton3376]

Others have posted a couple of links. IIRC, Gravy does have one also.

Here's a couple that might be redundant:

http://911science.googlepages.com/home
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

This page gives you Building Code Revisions based on NIST findings:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

The right way to figure this out & to find the references is to go thru an Engineering Citation Index using the NIST Report as a start point. This will give you first generation references.

Google Scholar is a serviceable citation index.
It produces 260 hits on [+"world trade center" +NIST +NCSTAR].
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+"world+trade+center"++NIST++NCSTAR&btnG=Search

If you check the "cited by" box under the titles, you'll find about 200 additional citations.

CiteSeerX comes back with 9700 references.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q="world+trade+center"+ncstar+nist.&submit=Search&sort=rel&ic=1

Bing comes back with 8400 hits.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=+"world+trade+center"+ncstar++nist.&go=&form=QBRE

Unfortunately, most online Citation Indices are pay sites. And not cheap.

So getting a comprehensive list would require a trip to the library for me.

While a bunch of these references (from Google scholar, Bing) are not going to be published papers, it is pretty clear that there is a boatload of research that has derived from the NIST reports.

Tom

Thanks for the many links.....one would think that the combined weight of all of these papers written by the engineering community would be enough to discourage truthers from continuing their psuedo-scientific nonesense.

But such is their "movement"...

Anyway thanks for the links...I'm going to save this for future reference.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

Others have posted a couple of links. IIRC, Gravy does have one also.

Here's a couple that might be redundant:

http://911science.googlepages.com/home
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

This page gives you Building Code Revisions based on NIST findings:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

The right way to figure this out & to find the references is to go thru an Engineering Citation Index using the NIST Report as a start point. This will give you first generation references.

Google Scholar is a serviceable citation index.
It produces 260 hits on [+"world trade center" +NIST +NCSTAR].
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+"world+trade+center"++NIST++NCSTAR&btnG=Search

If you check the "cited by" box under the titles, you'll find about 200 additional citations.

CiteSeerX comes back with 9700 references.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q="world+trade+center"+ncstar+nist.&submit=Search&sort=rel&ic=1

Bing comes back with 8400 hits.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=+"world+trade+center"+ncstar++nist.&go=&form=QBRE

Unfortunately, most online Citation Indices are pay sites. And not cheap.

So getting a comprehensive list would require a trip to the library for me.

While a bunch of these references (from Google scholar, Bing) are not going to be published papers, it is pretty clear that there is a boatload of research that has derived from the NIST reports.

Tom

Debunking 911 Myths also has a list at the bottom of this link: http://debunking911.com/links.htm.

 

[tfk]

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

3 out of 4 of the references that YOU picked expressly support the conclusions of NIST. Even tho Dr. Q disagrees with some of the mechanisms, he agrees that the damage & fires brought them down.

0 out of 4 contradict it.

Your typical incompetence.

If you want to make it worth my while to do the citation search, I'll bet you $500 that I can come up with a list of 200 independent references that reference the NIST report with no mention of contradiction.

tk

 

[Justin39640]

It doesn't really matter if it's 50 stories or 100 stories. But it would be worth initiating the collapse from the top 16 floors or so, to make it more obviously comparable to the WTC towers.

If you have the time, that is. Great work.

thanks
heres another one
doesnt fully collapse but 2/3rds do


still wouldnt want to be near or in this

 

[bill smith]

3 out of 4 of the references that YOU picked expressly support the conclusions of NIST. Even tho Dr. Q disagrees with some of the mechanisms, he agrees that the damage & fires brought them down.

0 out of 4 contradict it.

Your typical incompetence.

If you want to make it worth my while to do the citation search, I'll bet you $500 that I can come up with a list of 200 independent references that reference the NIST report with no mention of contradiction.

tk

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

 

[beachnut]

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

Source? Prove it!
Why make up lies and post them without supporting evidence? Makes the post a moronic lie based on nothing. The post is reflective of your failed support of Heiwa's fantasy concept proved wrong on 911.

You failed to refute NIST's work with evidence and you have not presented support for Heiwa. Are you making up lies on purpose or are you ignorant on this subject?

 

[triforcharity]

So why, if they cannot be trusted, have building codes nationwide been modified?? Es every state also in on this little conspiracy that you keep peddling???

 

[aggle-rithm]

Deep44, they all understand it perfectly, but finewine got himself into a fine pickle and the only way everyone sees to get out of it is to dodge and weave and try and turn everything around onto us "truthers"

They do this ALL THE TIME.

Edit:


See what I mean. That's a perfect example.

That's right, Steve. When you come to a skeptics' forum and try to use dishonest debate tactics, you're going to get called on it and asked to focus on the argument at hand, rather than bogging down the discussion with endless gripes about such matters as the meaning of the word "all".

I'm sorry you don't approve, but that's life.

tfk, I quoted your entire "c" bullet point in the message you're referring to, as opposed to only picking out a portion of it. In that particular bullet point, you were referring to the entire organization - so it included the smaller groups you referenced in "a" and "b". There was no reason to respond to them.

As for your other points - I just felt it was more of the same. From the first part, where you're talking about how you personally would react:

"It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large."​

That's not an established fact - it's an opinion. There's no evidence to support it, but you treat it as a fact and use it to support the rest of your argument (in that section).

Also - if you're disappointed that people aren't responding to all the points you make in a single message - try dividing them into multiple, smaller messages. Just a suggestion - it makes responding more manageable (in my opinion).

EDIT: just to clarify, this is the post I'm referencing: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4903221&postcount=2475

Once again, arguing semantics rather than focusing on the topic at hand. Why do you truthers do this? Why don't you want to discuss the truth? Who is paying you to stifle debate with your linguistic nonsense?

 

[bill smith]

Let's face it- when the debunkers say that most of the world's scientists stand behind the NIST reports that is a very dishonest way of lookng at it. The true case is that most scientists have not spoken out one way or the other. Given that we know that for a scientist to speak out againt the official position is not at all helpful to his career prospects we can imagine why they do not speak out. See the link at the bottom to hear one demolition expert confirming this.

Many scientists have not even looked into the controlled demolition hypothesis at all having taken the government and their media at face value. I strongly suspect that that situation is now changing at an increasing rate what with the Truth mMovement's views getting much more exposure and credibility despite the mainstream media. Even www.ae911truth.org now has above 700 degreed and licensed Architects and Engineers fully signed up and demanding an independent investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Danny Jowenko

 

[SteveAustin]

The grotesquely misnamed "truth" movement consists of three essential components, stupidity, dishonesty, and insanity, in varying degrees. Let's examine one of the favorite ploys of "truthers":.

Everyone notice the oft used disinfo tactic here? The constant smear.

Of course most people will not see the irony in his statement

Supposedly, individuals in relevant industries abound who understand that the explanations supplied by real physicists, engineers, demolition professionals, aeronautical engineers, seismologists, metallurgists, avionics techs, fire safety experts, forensic examiners, air traffic controllers, etc., are simply wrong. Many of these individuals live in nations unfriendly to the U.S.
WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT?

There are hundreds of demolition companies, big and small, in the U.S. NOT ONE demolition expert has come forward to dispute the views of prominent members of the industry. Who stops them? Is the demolition industry uniquely infiltrated by minions of your mad, imaginary conspiracy?
What shackles the hundreds of consultants employed by NIST? Is this agency of the Department of Commerce a hive of maniacs conspiring to conquer the world for Halliburton? What stops air traffic controllers from rebutting Dave Bottiglia and his colleagues? Where are the metallurgists who buy the manure your insane movement shovels? There must an army of conspirators--who never leak anything--to knock into line the thousands of people across a wide spectrum of industries who know the "truth." Who are these evildoers? How can so many hide for so long? If they have to hide, how can they be all-powerful?

A personal anecdote: a friend of mine watched Flight 175 crash into the south tower from her office windows. I told her that no-planers think she is lying. She says she doesn't care what psychos think. I said that they believe she is supporting the "gubmint" story to protect her job. She asked who was threatening to fire her. I said that evil forces that control everything were threatening her job. She replied that she retired in 2005--who was threatening what? I said that she was being paid off by the Gigantic Conspiracy. She wondered why she was being paid NOT to go public with her story.

And on it goes.

Since you seem to be way to dense to understand (truth is you probably do understand but are simply to dishonest) let's try this a different way...

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

 

[Justin39640]

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

the fact that they didnt recognize it as a controlled demolition

 

[Gamolon]

I have seen those photos. A second later WTC 2 visibly explodes and top part C tilts over and disappears. I suggest the deformation of the wall is a result of the CD seen externally a fraction of a second later.

How in the hell can a controlled demolition make columns buckle BEFORE it happens?!?!

Also, I thought controlled demolition CUT support columns, not buckle them?

So you admit that there ARE buckling columns? Just that they were caused to buckle by a controlled demolition of some sort?

In that case your website is wrong and needs to be corrected. Or do you like to mislead people to make a point?:

If that'1. 1 The major Problem - No Evidence of (1) Buckled Columns, (2) Free Fall, (3) Impact and (4) Shock Wave or (5) Rigid

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe if anyone here had the guts, the courage to leave JREF and come out in the real world and have a real discussion on 9/11 we could get some progress, but i've offered at least a dozen times now for a discussion on a nice neutral forum but no one has taken me up on it NO ONE!

Then why are you still here?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I hdn''t actually looked at this link for a year or two. Wow. I think it is getting time for us Truthers to start ridiculing you debunkers.It's going to start happening soon anyway. You know it. That will be fun.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

[SteveAustin]

Deep,
.

I said lots of things. What you have excerpted here is a typical little quote mine of my comments.

Deep, how dare you. You know very well that quote mining (not that that's what you did) is the preserve of the JREF "debunkers". We see it all the time from them, but of course how dare I point that out!!!

I said:
1. It is my OPINION that few people on the ae911 list have prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report.

So, in your OPINION, who exactly over at ae911truth.org does not have the prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report? Please list them and why!

I stated that it's a fact that:
2. A bunch of the related engineers are "baby engineers".

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

Do you people see how the disinfo "debunkers" attempt to dismiss experts without having to argue the facts? Simply make up some odious claim that they are not qualified, doesn't matter how ludicrous the claim is because if you state it with enough force and authority most people will believe you.

3. Anyone who said immediately "that's fishy" was incompetent.

Why? Someone sees something that seems fishy right off the bat and that makes them incompetent? Your are really really pushing the bounds of disinfo here Tom

4. The folks at ae911t have produce NO (as in zero, not one) paper in a peer reviewed journal (read to the end of the sentence, deep) that has stood up to subsequent critique and independent verification.
5. I said that "productivity is a component of competence", and by this measure, they are incompetent.

Ah yes, the moved goal posts. There were constant screams from "debunkers" that said we had to publish something, then when we do they arbitrarily move the goal posts. BTW Tom those peer reviewed articles have stood up to critique and independent verification, after all there have been no peer reviewed rebuttals of those papers. A non-peer reviewed comment on JREF is not valid, it has ZERO credibility, regardless of what you say. If you want to critique those papers then do it in a peer reviewed journal. All JREF "debunkers" have said how easy it is to have even a non-valid paper published, so you should have no problems publishing a rebuttal!

...

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Why don't you try switching to adult conversation. You know, asking people what they think, instead of telling them what they think. Trying to understand concepts with some depth, instead of playing "gotcha" with phraseology.

tom

LOL there goes Tom again using the old...

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

Seems Tom (and many others here) like to claim that anyone who does not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory is an immature kid!! ROFL

How many times are you going to try and use that one Tom? Has anyone taken the bait yet? Has anyone fallen for it?

 

[dtugg]

Everyone notice the oft used disinfo tactic here? The constant smear.

Of course most people will not see the irony in his statement



Since you seem to be way to dense to understand (truth is you probably do understand but are simply to dishonest) let's try this a different way...

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

Nothing. But every rational person already knows that twoofers are wrong and that there was no controlled demolition at the WTC so most experts do not feel the need to speak out against the whackjobs. Not to mention your pathetic movement is tiny and insignificant. When I leave my computer, you no longer exist.

Pretending for a moment that it were a controlled demolition one would wonder (at least if one were rational) why the world's experts are not speaking out against it. Are they all bought and paid for by the NWO, even ones hostile to the US? Did the NWO manage to pull it off in a manner that was only detectable to morons on the Internet?

How many experts speak against the crazy people who say the earth is flat?

 

[SteveAustin]

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those. People were simply supposed to take it on faith that they all supported the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now you are going to get it!