• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

metamars said:
If it's the case that that the meteor contains evidence of CD, and that NIST also knew this, then we can reasonably infer that they are protecting themselves from investigation by simply being hogs. (I don't think the "meterorite" is classified.)

I hereby award myself a point!
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Mr.D said:
So in other words, this whole thread is the old "What if there really was a conspiracy, how would they have covered it up?" thought exercise only with you namedropping Chomsky?
Click to expand...

But: Game, Set and Match to me.
 
metamars said:
Could posters please save comments about steel frame buildings .......

Now, if somebody wants to comment on how NIST might protect itself from dissenters or from investigation, that would be relevant, as NIST is a part of the US government.
Click to expand...

How about we comment on the unlikeliness that the employees of NIST are some sort of extreme loyalists, willing to cover-up the deaths of thousands for the sake of "saving face" or "OOOOOHH, I might get fired if I spill-the-beans !!"
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but NIST primarily hires scholarly scientists and post graduate students from the private sector....not NSA boot camp survivors or sworn NWO allegiants.
http://www.nist.gov/hrmd/staffing/recruitmentbrochure.pdf


If it's the case that that the meteor contains evidence of CD, and that NIST also knew this, then we can reasonably infer that they are protecting themselves from investigation by simply being hogs.
Click to expand...

By that rationality,.....I hereby claim that that chunk of material has Kryptonite in it. (and) Because NIST won't let us test it, we infer that it does contain Kryptonite, and that NIST must know this, evidenced by their unwillingness to share a sample.

=S=
 
Stupid said:
How about we comment on the unlikeliness that the employees of NIST are some sort of extreme loyalists, willing to cover-up the deaths of thousands for the sake of "saving face" or "OOOOOHH, I might get fired if I spill-the-beans !!"
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but NIST primarily hires scholarly scientists and post graduate students from the private sector....not NSA boot camp survivors or sworn NWO allegiants.
http://www.nist.gov/hrmd/staffing/recruitmentbrochure.pdf
Click to expand...

This ties in with Metamars' obvious belief that anybody who thinks the 'official story' is the one that is supported by the most amount of real evidence is either a government shill, stupid, or 'in on it'. It's kind of a woo woo circuit breaker to prevent world view corruption.
 
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers

Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience says that every peer-reviewed sceintific paper proves the "official version" to be the way 9/11 happened. The "truthers" don't have any peer-reviewed scientific papers that proves their claims. Where can I find these peer-reviewed scientific papers that Matt Dillahunty mentions?

I used to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy baloney. I then grew a brain, thought about it more critically, and shed all belief in that non-sense. I would like to gather all of the credible information I can on 9/11. If anyone can help me find those 9/11 scientific peer-reviewed papers, I would really appreciate it.
 
A list of peer-viewed scientific papers regarding the event that "hasn't been investigated." This list is by no means comprehensive.

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

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

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

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

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

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.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
 
Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
A list of peer-viewed scientific papers regarding the event that "hasn't been investigated." This list is by no means comprehensive.

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

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

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

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

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

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.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's pretty impressive. Are you claiming a concensus there on the exact causes of the WTC collapses?

Hmmm?
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any one those papers say it was magical silent explosives, or therm*te, or a giant laser from outer space, or whatever it is that HI's fantasy calls for.
 
The only thing that HI can do is cry about how NIST's wasn't a good enough investigation since he can't possibly refute them, even if he understood the science.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
What a copout. Maybe you should read some of those papers before you go promoting them as on your side as far as there being no more need for investigation.
Click to expand...

Look, I have no idea what you're getting at. I did not "promote" anything for any "side". Josh111485 asked for peer-reviewed scientific papers regarding the twins collapses, and I gave him some.
 
I remember I read a post about a peer reviewed truther PowerPoint presentation.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
What a copout. Maybe you should read some of those papers before you go promoting them as on your side as far as there being no more need for investigation.
Click to expand...
And the number of peer-reviewed papers that promote a CD of some type? That would be none.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Look, I have no idea what you're getting at. I did not "promote" anything for any "side". Josh111485 asked for peer-reviewed scientific papers regarding the twins collapses, and I gave him some.
Click to expand...

You were promoting those papers no? You posted them. What did posting them mean to you? Were you trying to prove something?

Come on. Commit.
 
3bodyproblem said:
OH DEAR ME!, THERE'S NO UNIFIED FIELD THEORY YET EITHER! Better start fastening everything to the ground...
Click to expand...

That's got nothing on the world of *rule10* evolution's gotten itself into...

Homeland Insurgency said:
Wrong sub-forum. Got anything else?
Click to expand...
If you're looking for some kind of 100% consensus on anything as a pre-requisite to make it a plausible theory that throws just about every major theory from evolution to the extinction of the Dinosaurs into complete chaos... As far as the WTC is concerned, all I've seen are the differences in the role of two mechanisms that were directly involved in their collapse, and the theories coming from a whole lotta kooks that can't even decide whether explosives, space beams, mini-nukes, etc. etc. brought down the towers... If you're looking for some sort of equilibrium between every one of those categories that's going to be one of those unreachable utopian fantasies... That's about the only description I can hand it.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Wrong sub-forum. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


As grizz pointed out, you're asking for exact consensus on the collapse. Ain't going to happen. And this is on the forgiving side. If you don't understand your own question, which is entirely plausible as well, you're not really capable of continuing the discussion. Sorry.
 
Discussion on steel structure collapse split to new thread.

Keep it civil and on-topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
As grizz pointed out, you're asking for exact consensus on the collapse. Ain't going to happen. And this is on the forgiving side. If you don't understand your own question, which is entirely plausible as well, you're not really capable of continuing the discussion. Sorry.
Click to expand...

This is like trying to argue that the difference between the NIST and Arup/Edinburgh collapse analyses somehow undermines the basic impact/fire/collapse premise, whereas in fact they instead argue about different aspects of same and the precise collapse initiation.

In fact, one thing I find particularly ironic is that members of the Truth Movement do not in fact found upon this issue more ofter inasmuch as it is the closest there is to learned professional disagreement on the collapse. Gage, for example, avoids it like the plague. Personally - and I am qualified to say this, hehe - I think it's because he's an incompetent nincompoop who doesn't understand the points at hand.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
That's got nothing on the world of *rule10* evolution's gotten itself into...


If you're looking for some kind of 100% consensus on anything as a pre-requisite to make it a plausible theory that throws just about every major theory from evolution to the extinction of the Dinosaurs into complete chaos... As far as the WTC is concerned, all I've seen are the differences in the role of two mechanisms that were directly involved in their collapse, and the theories coming from a whole lotta kooks that can't even decide whether explosives, space beams, mini-nukes, etc. etc. brought down the towers... If you're looking for some sort of equilibrium between every one of those categories that's going to be one of those unreachable utopian fantasies... That's about the only description I can hand it.
Click to expand...

The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?

Your declared opponents, the twoofers, have come at the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum of beliefs, and the more ridiculous ones have been flagged and rightly, should be dismissed. But, extremely intelligent people still have nagging doubts, and I don't feel the need to be ashamed for sharing them.

This thread seems to indicate there is a lot of 'cherry picking' over which ones to believe. All the twoofer's experts are cranks, and all the debunkers experts are, well...experts. There seems to be a bit of a disparity here.
 
Ragnarok said:
The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?
Click to expand...


This is a point other truthers have brought up, and it puzzles me (and others): Why would they need to specifically search for explosives to find any evidence of explosives?

The funny thing is that a member of one of the "X for 9/11 Truth" groups actually did take part in the search for evidence of explosives in the debris at the Fresh Kills landfill.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This is a point other truthers have brought up, and it puzzles me (and others): Why would they need to specifically search for explosives to find any evidence of explosives?

The funny thing is that a member of one of the "X for 9/11 Truth" groups actually did take part in the search for evidence of explosives in the debris at the Fresh Kills landfill.
Click to expand...

When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
 
Ragnarok said:
When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
Click to expand...


Why are you asking me?
 
Ragnarok said:
Because you sounded like you knew what you are on about, and you just questioned my query about methodology. Nevermind.
Click to expand...


Hey, I was just asking a question. Oh, and also casting some doubt on your claim that evidence for explosives wasn't being looked for*. That gives me a free pass as far as knowing anything, doesn't it? That's how it works, right?

--
* And that came from a truther, although I wish I could remember who and what group he belonged to. Someone else here pointed it out last year sometime.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
What a copout. Maybe you should read some of those papers before you go promoting them as on your side as far as there being no more need for investigation.
Click to expand...
Whoever said there was "no need for more investigation"?

Would you mind telling me when the investigations stopped?

Just because no one is looking at your "pet theory" (although I've yet to see one) doesn't mean more research is not being conducted.
 
Travis said:
Chomsky not believing the US government was behind 9/11 is the one time in the history of everything that he got something right. So good for him. Now he only has all those BS books and all those annoying speeches to atone for.
Click to expand...

QFMFT.

I just felt that needed reiterating.
 
Ragnarok said:
The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether or not they specifically looked for evidence of explosives or not since they weren't there. I know this has been explained to you more than once but I'll do it again. There were no extremely loud bangs, which proves for a fact that there were no explosives. Once more in an attempt to drive this through your head. There were no extremely loud bangs, which proves for a fact that there were no explosives.

Your declared opponents, the twoofers, have come at the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum of beliefs, and the more ridiculous ones have been flagged and rightly, should be dismissed. But, extremely intelligent people still have nagging doubts, and I don't feel the need to be ashamed for sharing them.
Click to expand...

There are no extremely smart twoofers. The two are mutually exclusive.

This thread seems to indicate there is a lot of 'cherry picking' over which ones to believe. All the twoofer's experts are cranks, and all the debunkers experts are, well...experts. There seems to be a bit of a disparity here.
Click to expand...

Twoofers don't have experts. If they were experts they wouldn't be twoofers.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
Click to expand...


Yes, in fact, they did.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4351313&postcount=308

Explains the steel investigation. Any problems with theclaims and you could contact the relevant personnel. I know you won't though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom