Watch trailer: 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

[Marokkaan]

Great illustration of how to make a propaganda video to mislead the public.

Some PR people sell cars, others sell 9/11 conspiracies. For money and profit.

How much is Richard Gage paid per year to spread disinformation? about $70K, I recall.

Nice, and niels harrit? and the other experts

 

[WildCat]

Nice, could you show me proof

He set up ae911truth as a nonprofit corporation, so all the financial records are public.

I'm sure a crack researcher like yourself will have no trouble finding them.

 

[uke2se]

Why are you guys wasting this much time on an obvious troll? Just wait a few weeks for the school semester to pick up and he'll be gone. There's a shock of homework when you start junior high.

 

[ergo]

....

Bears repeating. Thanks for posting this, Marokkaan.

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

I especially liked this note:

I have been a co-author on other published papers with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. After every one of those is published, someone like Ryan Mackey writes to the editor of the journal criticizing their publication standards. He never addresses the substance of our papers, but instead tries to make the editors regret publishing our papers... It usually ends with the editors recommending that Mackey submit his own response paper for publication (as I did for the Bazant/Verdure Paper) but he never does.

And yet Mackey clearly put so much effort into that whitish paper of his that nobody reads... Why doesn't he try to get it published somewhere?

 

[DC]

You cant complete an investigation, without the cleaners. Why you dont understand it?

A cleaner is indirect involved with the investigation. Just like the person who typed the reports on the computer and watched at the spelling and the grammar.

Without those people the investigation would fail

doesn't change the fact that you were wrong with your claim. they were not counted, they surely contributed, but they were not among the 200 technical experts.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A number of 2006 model-year Truthers, left in storage for the past five years, seem to have been recently activated.

 

[Marokkaan]

Bears repeating. Thanks for posting this, Marokkaan.




I especially liked this note:



And yet Mackey clearly put so much effort into that whitish paper of his that nobody reads... Why doesn't he try to get it published somewhere?

Your welcome. Mackey likes cherry picking.

And not only mackey , also sunstealer and the others here at jref, should try to get their papers published

 

[Marokkaan]

doesn't change the fact that you were wrong with your claim. they were not counted, they surely contributed, but they were not among the 200 technical experts.

No you are wrong, the 200 experts are not the investigation team of NIST. The 200 experts are a part of the investigation.

 

[DC]

No you are wrong, the 200 experts are not the investigation team of NIST. The 200 experts are a part of the investigation.

 

[DC]

Your welcome. Mackey likes cherry picking.

And not only mackey , also sunstealer and the others here at jref, should try to get their papers published

a bit hyporcitical of you, isn't it? you posted a video of K.Ryan's cherry picking the NIST Reports.

 

[Scott Sommers]

A number of 2006 model-year Truthers, left in storage for the past five years, seem to have been recently activated.

Yes, this is very interesting. It's as if, in anticipation of the 10-year memorial, a research idea that was suggested half a decade ago has been dusted off for another show. You'd almost wonder why, but I am reminded of a post in which we talked about how the JREF functions in Truther world. There really is no chance these guys offer any new or credible scientific data, but they can create the impression of action by posting ferociously on the Internet. I saw that last year with my Truther Facebook friends. Many of spent the entire week of September 11 posting everyday all day about 9/11.

Good luck guys. Call me when you manage to take over the world.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A number of 2006 model-year Truthers, left in storage for the past five years, seem to have been recently activated.

If they were auto parts they'd be called "New Old Stock."

 

[Travis]

They say only with words they didnt found convincing evidence to support the cd theory.

But they dont even take the chance to show why the cd theory is not possible.

Just like i said its about the conflict of interest.

They know the NIST reports contains faults, but they only comment and dont demand NIST has to take action, to do something with those faults.

It has nothing to do with a conflict with interest.

There are plenty of reasons they don't believe in the CD idea without needing to say why:

• No evidence of anyone hearing explosive detonation
• No evidence of barotrauma from high explosives
• No evidence that any demolition experts had the months necessary for emplacement of explosives on thousands of columns
• No evidence of detonators or detonation cord in the rubble
• No evidence of columns that had been cut by high explosives
• No evidence of any demolition company that either had unexplained hundreds of millions of dollars or suddenly had most of it's employees turn up dead
• No evidence that high explosives or their detonation systems could have survived the large fires

Should I go on? If I'm aware of those things then they are too.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Of course that will a debunker always say, the option of conflicts of interest, you dont even care.

Just ignore the 1500 experts

Of course this point has been made many times before already but it bears repeating for those who forget easily; credibility is judged by the merits of the claims, not by the number of people holding a professional title. You have 1500 architects and engineers who have failed to follow some of the most basic procedures in research in their own fields. Do you know what this means? Of course not; let me cue you in. It means that their professions mean nothing if their claims are unsupportable or their research capabiliies are sloppy. In the real world, we call this professional incompetence.

 

[WildCat]

Of course this point has been made many times before already but it bears repeating for those who forget easily; credibility is judged by the merits of the claims, not by the number of people holding a professional title. You have 1500 architects and engineers who have failed to follow some of the most basic procedures in research in their own fields. Do you know what this means? Of course not; let me cue you in. It means that their professions mean nothing if their claims are unsupportable or their research capabiliies are sloppy. In the real world, we call this professional incompetence.

That's not fair! The truther experts may be incompetent, but it's all they have!

 

[Marokkaan]

It has nothing to do with a conflict with interest.

There are plenty of reasons they don't believe in the CD idea without needing to say why:

• No evidence of anyone hearing explosive detonation
• No evidence of barotrauma from high explosives
• No evidence that any demolition experts had the months necessary for emplacement of explosives on thousands of columns
• No evidence of detonators or detonation cord in the rubble
• No evidence of columns that had been cut by high explosives
• No evidence of any demolition company that either had unexplained hundreds of millions of dollars or suddenly had most of it's employees turn up dead
• No evidence that high explosives or their detonation systems could have survived the large fires

Should I go on? If I'm aware of those things then they are too.

Come on, if we talk like that,

I could also make a list of reasons, why natural collapse by structure failure is not possible.

But the reason, conflict with interest, you cant deny, or do you have proof its impossible?

 

[DC]

Come on, if we talk like that,

I could also make a list of reasons, why natural collapse by structure failure is not possible.

But the reason, conflict with interest, you cant deny, or do you have proof its impossible?

pls do so

 

[The Platypus]

Come on, if we talk like that,

I could also make a list of reasons, why natural collapse by structure failure is not possible.

But the reason, conflict with interest, you cant deny, or do you have proof its impossible?

You should try to make your dodges, less obvious. Just a tip...

 

[Dave Rogers]

I could also make a list of reasons, why natural collapse by structure failure is not possible.

Go ahead. We'll tell you why they're invalid.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Go ahead. We'll tell you why they're invalid.

Dave

Remember when ae911truth "truther of the month" Heiwa claimed that if the top portion of the WTC was dropped on the bottom portion from a height of 5 miles it would just bounce off, no damage done?

Good times!