Bin Laden's death a 'temporary glitch'
Comments
-
kaiser83 wrote:at the end of the day you have you're opinion, which you think is valid and the truth, and i have mine, probably best leave it at that eh....
I'm sorry, that is not allowed. This is the Crudcatcher, you have to keep arguing till one of you goes mad, has a go at all the mods and gets banned.0 -
cooldad wrote:
In all seriousness do yourself a favour and do some proper research, not just spout nonsense from a long discredited site.blister pus wrote:Qualified Yanks, though, eh. and some probably more qualified than you - only slightly less arrogant.
There are a few batshit ‘experts’ who maintain the 911 truth line, outnumbered thousands to one by actual experts who have no argument with the official, correct interpretation of what happened.
If you do actually do some research, you will find that most of the ‘experts’ you cite are in fact not qualified in anything to do with construction, engineering, demolition or any related field.
Some have degrees in totally unrelated fields (such as dentistry), some cited ‘experts’ do not have the qualifications they claim, and a number do not actually exist.
There are no on-going talks between 911truth and NIST, and never have been, and there is absolutely no chance at all, ever, never, that there will be in future.
If you would like to continue this discussion in the Hub, where arguments should at least be slightly rational and insult free, feel free.
Get your facts right first. And stop conflating disformation as fact. AE911Truth is exactly that, predominantly architects and engineers, all went to school, all qualified in their respective fields, all question what NIST have put out. Same goes for Pilots911Truth, actually. All verifiable. The sensible groups have actually sat at NIST debriefing Q&A sessions and have done from day one, when allowed. I also said 'discourse' , you silly cunt. And no I wouldn't because you haven't a clue about what you are talking about, so it's just wasting time. Which is exactly why I said what i said first time round.0 -
blister pus wrote:you silly ****
you need to chill out, this is worse than the dust caps issue!0 -
blister pus wrote:Qualified Yanks, though, eh. and some probably more qualified than you - only slightly less arrogant.
third post in and its turned to abuse shame
apologies if it appeared arrogant wasnt the intention.
If you have read any of my other posts on various things in here you may, or may not have picked up, that im a highway engineer i design roads. Therefore, im sure their are more qualified people to speak on the matter, i would not be surpised if there were people on this forum who were more qualified. However, many of the so called experts for the truth.org were exposed to be nothing of the sort, the rest are not really experts. The mexican quarry worker with a working knowledge of dynamite is an expert at blowing up cliff faces or anything else he straps his dynamite but not much else.
You seem to be suggesting that by pointing out that free falling progressive collapse is a known pehnonemen that i was in some way creaming over the work of NIST, not sure how you made that leap tbh
but anyway your first link author is Ronald H. Brookman, SE. Could you dig out his licence number, professional bodies or any papers he has contributed too. Im kind of intrigued why a licenced strutrual engineer quotes the truth movement in his paper rather than the plethora of technical documents which would be available to him.
2nd document
same author also did
http://sealane.org/writings/NYCollapse.html
at least at that point he still believed it was terrorists
:roll:0 -
mak3m, the last time I looked into all this to see if there was anything in it I was told all sourced material was available on request through AE911. But you have to put your professional head on to get through the door for obvious reasons, it's a contentious issue and they take heat (as you could imagine). And if you have legitimate questions / observations about method then you can contact the researchers concerned. Most of the stuff I looked into was already in the public domain and i was satisfied there was more than a legitimate counter argument and left it that, time is short for most people and researching anything takes a shit load of time, that i just don't have.0
-
All of the material is open source, my problem is that the truth organisation quote itself then quote the quote and present it as fact when its not its opinion.
legitimate questions dont go down to well, im ip banned from a lot of truth.org forums as im apparently a schilling in league with the illuminati.0 -
Legitimate questions go down very well depending on where you put them and who you ask, and it's not all open source because they can't afford / don't have to time to make it so. which is why if you're a legit enquirer you'll get exactly what they've got and a conversation, you just go through a filtering process, and rightly so. Forget forums, there's a couple that are worth a crap, you'll get a half decent response at 911 blogger if you're not a dick with a slant.0
-
well we will have to leave it their then, not having open sources is not debate its paranoia and you cant reason with that.
it does amuse me that the conspiracy theorists now have secret documents that only the chosen few can see and a filtering process is in place, isnt it this kind of thing these people are fighting to stop :roll:0 -
let's not start twisting what i said or the meaning, if you've been doing that then there's no surprise you've been IP banned at different places. I said not all is open source for obvious reasons like ongoing research and it costs time and money to get documents together and get them uploaded if you're dealing with a large volume of information, it's more practicality. but like i said, if you ask and don't be a dick then you'll usually get an answer. if you're perceived to be a dick and a time waster then you'll be treated accordingly, time is short and money tight, people have lives, etc.0
-
so, if i ask a valid question, such as;
what would be the consequences of an aircraft weighing 115,680 kg hitting a building certified to US building regulations, namely the world trade centre buildings?
am i actually going to get a straight answer that cites calculations and evidence ?
-or-
am i going to be presumed to be a "d*ick", as you put it, and be ignored/banned?
I like to see proof of things from well researched sources that are backed up my actual calculations, and so far i havent seen any of this so at the minute Blister Pus, i am skeptical of you opinion, and rightly so most would say.
As you dont know me, you dont know what i do and what field i am qualified in, then suggesting that my opinion is born from arrogance, as done a few post ago, is unfounded and you are stabbing in the dark like an uphill gardener.0 -
kaiser83 wrote:so, if i ask a valid question, such as;
what would be the consequences of an aircraft weighing 115,680 kg hitting a building certified to US building regulations, namely the world trade centre buildings?
am i actually going to get a straight answer that cites calculations and evidence ?
-or-
am i going to be presumed to be a "d*ick", as you put it, and be ignored/banned?
I like to see proof of things from well researched sources that are backed up my actual calculations, and so far i havent seen any of this so at the minute Blister Pus, i am skeptical of you opinion, and rightly so most would say.
As you dont know me, you dont know what i do and what field i am qualified in, then suggesting that my opinion is born from arrogance, as done a few post ago, is unfounded and you are stabbing in the dark like an uphill gardener.
This is the crudcatcher, you'll get an appropriate respone.
But to answer your question, We saw a plane hit a building or two, they fell down. There was also an explosion. People ran about, some fell out of the building.0 -
hey, i said in my original post what the score was, it's up to you, or anyone else, to go and educate yourself of any opposing argument, especially as one with the complexity thrown up by the NIST debate (as just one example). i'm not here to spoon feed anyone or persuade anyone of anything, do your own research as best you can, there's a ton of information and data to sift through from both sides and you'll hardly have scratched the surface after a month if you've done the job right (and yes, your brain will hurt).
me, I've loosely kept tabs on all this from day one as a bit of entertainment and distraction and so I know the background to the story, with the likes of Indira Singh, William Rodriguez and Sybil Edmonds. so it wasn't such a mind bender straight off. it's one big sprawling subject when you get into it. but like i said in my first post, no concrete conclusion will ever be drawn, so when you're done with the subject, file it under whatever and go out and get some fresh air and ride a bike or something0 -
blister pus wrote:hey, i said in my original post what the score was, it's up to you, or anyone else, to go and educate yourself of any opposing argument, especially as one with the complexity thrown up by the NIST debate (as just one example). i'm not here to spoon feed anyone or persuade anyone of anything, do your own research as best you can, there's a ton of information and data to sift through from both sides and you'll hardly have scratched the surface after a month if you've done the job right (and yes, your brain will hurt).
me, I've loosely kept tabs on all this from day one as a bit of entertainment and distraction and so I know the background to the story, with the likes of Indira Singh, William Rodriguez and Sybil Edmonds. so it wasn't such a mind bender straight off. it's one big sprawling subject when you get into it. but like i said in my first post, no concrete conclusion will ever be drawn, so when you're done with the subject, file it under whatever and go out and get some fresh air and ride a bike or something
Ok,
so simple question, was it the plane(s) that bought the tower down?0 -
no plane hit building 70
-
My last post - a bit long but copied from another forum, basically a question to Doug Plumb of the ae911truth site in reply to his statement "No one stays on the AE911truth as an eng or architect unless we see their diploma"
"I have a question for Doug Plumb about the qualifications of some of the members listed as belonging to ae911truth ... in particular, those who claim to be structural or civil engineers ... and thus presumably have some actual expertise in subjects related to the collapse of structures.
Is "Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer, Lafayette, CA" really a structural engineer, Doug? I can find nothing to indicate that. Something written about his son on the web states that "His father, Haluk was an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945." And note that would make him over 80 years old.
How about "James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant"? I can't find anything on the web about him. Nothing at the University of Texas either. Who does he work for? What has he been working on since graduation? When was that?
"Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer Washington Dc" is listed elsewhere as belonging to ASCE and being a project coordinator. But again, what is his actual experience. Is it water treatment? Foundation engineering? Highway engineering? Without knowing more, it's impossible to tell whether he actually has any relevant qualifications.
"Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA" is described on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the patriotsquestion911 website he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not mention that if he is one?
By the way, there is an interview with Ted Muga on the web where he says he retired as a naval aviator in 1985 and retired as a commercial pilot in 1991. Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. A little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims ... that there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon and that "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." Both statements are absolutely false as photos that are readily available on the internet prove. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." Well that is absolutely false. So clearly Ted is completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred. But that doesn't stop him from regurgitating the lies of the interviewer because he, like the interviewer, apparently has an agenda so the truth doesn't matter to him.
In other venues, "Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer, Thousand Oaks, CA" claimed to have "worked in structural steel for years" and "studied major structural collapses." But all we really know about this guy is what he claims. We don't know where he's worked. We don't know what degrees he has. And searching California Professional Engineers returns no hits under that name.
Again, there is no other reference for "Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer, Miami, Florida" on the web other than ae911truth's. We have no idea if this a real person, where he got his degree, where he's been practicing engineering, what projects he's been involved in or what he actually thinks.
"Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC" is not an expert in buildings. He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C.. He's about as qualified as you when it comes to structures, impact, fire and collapse.
"John Franklin, P.E." Surely you can tell us more than that. What is his expertise and experience? Why is so little information provided if you've checked these folks credentials out?
"Peter Gibbons P.E., Professional Engineer" Same complaint.
Next we have "Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural / Soils Engineer" in San Diego, California. Not much else available about him either.
"Robert Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer" Vancouver, BC. Same complaint.
"Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer" Same complaint. Although there is a Dennis Kollar apparently working for Ambrose Engineering in Cedarburg, WI and they do structural engineering. They seem to do a lot of schools.
"Ron Paul LeBlanc, PE, Engineer" Same complaint. Oh wait. Turns out he's in another line of work now ... real estate and selling home businesses.
The ae911truth site lists "Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural)" as a member. Mr Pegelow has a BS in civil engineering, not structural engineering. That's a separate, higher level degree. His is also a civil engineering license, rather than a structural engineering license. The ae911truth website is dishonest in implying that it is a structural license. Furthermore, it turns out that Pegelow has been working for about 30 years in the oil drilling industry. He spent almost his entire life working on oil drilling platforms. He's not an expert on buildings, much less skyscrapers.
"Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982" is listed as from Suttons Bay, Michigan. Unusual name. Could this be the same person? "Warren Raftshol, Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Grape grower, winery owner, libertarian since 1965." And elsewhere on the web he's described as follows "Raftshol, 51, has a scraggly beard and wears wide suspenders, denim shirts and jeans. He's a man with no pretenses. Though he has a master's degree in civil engineering from Northwestern University, he chose agriculture on the family homestead. "Back in the early '80s," he reminds you, "there were no jobs.""
"Massimo Dell'Affidabilità, Ing., Engineer, Structural Specialist". Well the name is a sure clue that the entry is bogus. Don't you think, Doug? "
Goodnight.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
TL:DRI don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Oh sweet jesus, the copy and pasters are out.
do some fucking work, man0 -
blister pus wrote:no plane hit building 7
LMAO no a freaking skyscraper did0 -
and that's not a factual comment either, building 7 sustained some collateral damage from debris. how many sites were you IP banned from?0
-
blister pus wrote:let's not start twisting what i said or the meaning, if you've been doing that then there's no surprise you've been IP banned at different places. I said not all is open source for obvious reasons like ongoing research and it costs time and money to get documents together and get them uploaded if you're dealing with a large volume of information, it's more practicality. but like i said, if you ask and don't be a dick then you'll usually get an answer. if you're perceived to be a dick and a time waster then you'll be treated accordingly, time is short and money tight, people have lives, etc.
so to recap
im arrogant, twisting your words and potentially a dick
as far as i am aware all of the 911 truth so called evidence is open source ou are the only person i have come across who alludes to secret info im not party too, and appears to rely on this secret info for their points.
for the record a discussion thread on lateral moment bending in progressive collapse was deemed to be too insiteful to be a forum user posting on a truth website, i was permabanned for being a shilling and employed by the government, not clear which government, although i admited to being in the employ of warwickshire county Council so maby it was local government or indeed WCC that was behind the attacks.
you make points, i raise points, you ignore them typical level of conspiracy theorist. If you have as claim done extensive research on this share some of your thoughts. Not the thoughts of american websites but your own opinions based on the research you completed
simples0 -
blister pus wrote:Oh sweet jesus, the copy and pasters are out.
do some ******* work, man
You would prefer that I sat and typed it all out? What difference would that make?
At least I've posted some information that can be either verified or disputed.
It's not suposition, theory or open to debate. They either have the relevant qualifications or they don't.
I say it's fact. Can you show me any inaccuracies? Any at all?
You know you can't.
You have just referred to a website that keeps it's information secret.
And made some stupid statements and used a lot of ********'s.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
blister pus wrote:and that's not a factual comment either, building 7 sustained some collateral damage from debris. how many sites were you IP banned from?
im sorry are you saying the north tower didnt strike wtc7 as it fell
this is universal fact, watch the news clippings from the live cameras that were on scene when it went down. also many of the conspiracy sites show large sections crashing over and into wtc7
collateral damage = large hole in corner of structure, sustained fire on multiple floors unchecked for hours
are you ready to move onto the shattered foundation pilings0 -
blister pus wrote:how many sites were you IP banned from?
you mad braw0 -
cooldad wrote:blister pus wrote:Oh sweet jesus, the copy and pasters are out.
do some ******* work, man
You would prefer that I sat and typed it all out? What difference would that make?
At least I've posted some information that can be either verified or disputed.
It's not suposition, theory or open to debate. They either have the relevant qualifications or they don't.
I say it's fact. Can you show me any inaccuracies? Any at all?
You know you can't.
You have just referred to a website that keeps it's information secret.
And made some stupid statements and used a lot of ********'s.
Reading deficit, like the other one.0 -
mak3m wrote:blister pus wrote:and that's not a factual comment either, building 7 sustained some collateral damage from debris. how many sites were you IP banned from?
im sorry are you saying the north tower didnt strike wtc7 as it fell
this is universal fact, watch the news clippings from the live cameras that were on scene when it went down. also many of the conspiracy sites show large sections crashing over and into wtc7
collateral damage = large hole in corner of structure, sustained fire on multiple floors unchecked for hours
are you ready to move onto the shattered foundation pilings
you've just quoted exactly what I said, it's exactly what i meant. a giant skyscraper did not fall onto building 7 as you so blithely put it, debris from the skyscraper hit the building. and you've forgot to mention the fires in the building.0 -
If it's up to us to educate ourselves, why are you foaming at the mouth so much? YOU don't seem to want to "teach" anything, to anybody. You're just out to call names, and make enemies. Oh, and spoon feed conspiracy theories to us.blister pus wrote:it's up to you, or anyone else, to go and educate yourself of any opposing argument
i'm not here to spoon feed anyone or persuade anyone of anything, do your own research as best you can,
I'm not an expert, but I think, the square root of dick is "balls". Which coincidentally is what you're talking.blister pus wrote:bike forum where people don't actually know the square root of dick
There really is a solid conclusion. Plane hit building. It fell down. Simple. Go and find something productive to do with yourself, for the love of jeebus.0 -
blister pus wrote:you've just quoted exactly what I said, it's exactly what i meant. a giant skyscraper did not fall onto building 7 as you so blithely put it, debris from the skyscraper hit the building. and you've forgot to mention the fires in the building.
sorry didnt mean to sound blythe or glib
a giant skyscraper fell towards a 47 story building large sections of steel fell into it creating a 20 storey hole in its main loading structure, fires broke out and remained unchecked on 15-20 floors of the building for 6+ hours. As the structure reloaded to compensate for the missing section it was doing so over piles resting on a shattered foundation plate.
yup its a complete mystery why that building collapsed0
