Happy False Flag Day!

bluechinagroup said:
According to wikipedia:
Click to expand...
Wow, are you even trying to imply that the feds are so stupid that they wouldn't think to polish up the story they are hiding in major places like wikipedia? Hmm. Again you disappoint me. If you were them after they did such a thing, wouldn't you at least try to sway that article to your POV just a bit? Hmm?


bluechinagroup said:
Your conspiracy theory does not conform with the beliefs of the mainstream scientific and engineering community as a whole. You can't just cherry pick an outlier like this and then proclaim that it's the mainstream view of all structural engineers.
Click to expand...
Look, I've heard enough from the guy I talked to and that AIA film to add to the cornucopia of other chunks of evidence to draw a bigger picture in my head that leaves no room whatsoever for something as stupid and impossible as the official story to fit in there too.

It makes perfect sense that many engineers would feel the need to keep quiet about such a thing. Some of them writing their opionions doesn't make a "mainstream consensus" any more than the AIA film did... So set those aside and dig deeper.


bluechinagroup said:
Oh look, here's a peer reviewed paper that further discredits your theory that 9/11 involved controlled demolition:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Paper
Click to expand...
Wow, that just wasn't convincing at all.

First of all how many peers reviewed it? I see a couple dozen at the bottom of the page there... At the time the AIA film was made, over 1032 architectural and engineering professionals and 6539 A&E students had signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation of 9/11... I doubt that a similar number reviewed your "peer reviewed" paper.

Secondly, where's the evidence? It was just a theory... I can theorize that the buildings came down because Atlas went on his lunch break... See, just as plausible. :thumbsup:


bluechinagroup said:
I'm part of the post 80s generation; there are many people in my age range on this forum. I'm pegging you as a baby boomer, but I could be totally off base.
Click to expand...
I'm turning 40 soon.

bluechinagroup said:
This section is called shooting the shit and shockingly trolling is a regular occurrence here as well as on the other WF sections.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I've never witnessed someone chase me onto another thread that was totally unrelated and continue the fight over there. That just seems to break all kinds of good netiquette.


bluechinagroup said:
I think you really get off on the idea of being some kind of libertarian philosopher-king who has a loyal flock of mindless sheep that you can share your "knowledge" with.
Click to expand...
Lol; make that Anarchist philosopher-prince and you're close enough... But I clearly don't have a flock of mindless sheep here and further I don't want one... I'm here to learn more than teach, and case in point, I wasn't even an Anarchist when I joined. I can thank people like JakeStratham, Guerilla and a few others for leading me down that path.


bluechinagroup said:
Like any tyrant though, you have a fragile ego and therefore zero tolerance for dissent and will do everything in your power to try to stamp it out or at the very least discredit it. Thankfully you pretty much have no real power, except for influencing the SERPS and I hear even that is waning.
Click to expand...
No, you're wrong here. It's just that you're clearly not researched on this topic and/or you've fallen for the wrong sources. I think you're mistaking my lack of wanting to argue this for a lack of care for a fair debate.
 


Bluechinagroup, is just upset because, like the rest of the world, no one pays respect to his racist.

Shit was that racist?

Sorry bro, did mean it that way, you guys build good bamboo frames I suppose..
 
LukeP said:
but it seems kinda batty to me that you can know these things but still think that the guv wouldn't want to kill its' own citizens.
Click to expand...

Save me your emotional babble.

You know very well that I said that any government is capable of killing their own citizens. Stop with the cheap strawman attacks. As I said already. I am simply skeptical that the government killed its own citizens on 9/11, especially through controlled demolitions.

Why is it wrong to be a skeptic when that is the foundation of the scientific method?

Each time you use this tired attack I will repeatedly remind you of this. The more often you use it, the stupider you will look.

You are a one trick pony Luke. In fact, the typical politician is less disingenuous than you are!

mattseh said:
You are an idiot.
Click to expand...

supplyshock said:
A touch of downs.
Click to expand...

Well said; jfizzle is a perfect example of a LukeP sheep; an unbelievably dumb troll that spews irrelevant and irreverent bullshit. These tards are plentiful, and LukeP uses them as his front line pawns for cheap troll attacks.

Moxie on the other hand is one of LukeP's top students. The guy has intelligence, but for whatever reason is pretty fixated on this controlled demolition theory. When LukeP gets desperate, he unleashes him.

Anyway it seems Moxie didn't bother to follow the link I posted earlier carefully. The peer reviewed paper was never that magazine article, though it did serve as good supporting evidence as well as a red herring to distract him.

This is the actual paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

It was published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and it has survived the scrutiny of a peer review. Several independent engineers and academics support this paper.

Nothing that LukeP has said so far has been supported by peer review. Peer review is the core foundation of the scientific method.

LukeP said "Find me just ONE structural engineer". I found several and what does this emotional crackpot do? He plugs his ears and screams like a child and then moves the goal posts. Yeah Luke, you're really the authority on maturity. :rolleyes:

As I said before LukeP, you're intellectually bankrupt. You were proven wrong and you refuse to concede. You just keep moving goal posts and you keep posting emotional bullshit and hearsay. You have selective bias and absolutely refuse to even consider anything to the contrary. All of your sources are unreliable crackpot horseshit and any mainstream source from a respected journal is dismissed by you because shit they must be in on it! Yeah I am sure even Hong Kong based academics are in on it too right Luke?

At least you did admit to me that you're a philosopher-prince. And of course you have a flock of sheep. Why else would you be a complete attention whore and keep posting these god damn inane threads? It's to feed that huge ego of yours, and if things don't go your way you have a emotional breakdown and then vow to never post again.

Of course it doesn't take long for you to keep posting since you are after all a narcissist with extreme delusions of grandeur. Why else would you have Scrooge McDuck as your avatar? That's your fantasy; in reality you're making a few k per month with your adsense farm and pay rent.

You're not even a marketer. You're just a babbling keyboard jock. You're completely shit tier in the MMO food chain.
 
miN4E.jpg
 
lukep said:
Secondly, where's the evidence? It was just a theory... I can theorize that the buildings came down because Atlas went on his lunch break... See, just as plausible. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

To be honest Luke, I don't even need to call you stupid. You do a fantastic job proving your ignorance in your very own posts.

Congratulations you just confused the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory! You have also proven that you have absolutely ZERO understanding of scientific law.

The layman definition of theory is basically what you just posted above. A "guess" or speculation. All conspiracy theories fall under this definition. They do not follow the scientific method and heavily rely on speculation and other informal remarks.

On the other hand, scientific theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

The theory of gravity for example isn't just a "guess". It's backed by evidence and can be even simulated by a computer.

What is the difference between a scientific theory and just the common theory

Nice work making yourself look like a complete clown. You're right, it's probably better for you to not post anymore since you'll continue to shit out nuggets like this for me to use against you and thus digging yourself into an even deeper hole.

lukep said:
At the time the AIA film was made, over 1032 architectural and engineering professionals and 6539 A&E students had signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation of 9/11... I doubt that a similar number reviewed your "peer reviewed" paper.
Click to expand...

This is apples and oranges you boob! If your 1032 crackpot engineers had any intellectual honestly they would directly challenge the peer reviewed paper!

A petition does not meet the scrutiny of the scientific method and means absolutely squat. Stop confusing political lobbying with science you queer duck.

Your reputation is in compete tatters now. There's no rational rebuttal you can give because logic is on my side.
 
Wow, I've learned a valuable lesson here today.

Some people are fucking insane. I shall not debate them ever again.

I will not be harassed nor blackmailed into coming back to this thread... I do have some dignity that bluechinagroup seems to be unaware of.


Jfizzle, Moxie, all the rest of "my sheep": Stand down. This one's not worth it. ;)
 
lukep said:
Wow, I've learned a valuable lesson here today.

Some people are fucking insane. I shall not debate them ever again.

I will not be harassed nor blackmailed into coming back to this thread... I do have some dignity that bluechinagroup seems to be unaware of.


Jfizzle, Moxie, all the rest of "my sheep": Stand down. This one's not worth it. ;)
Click to expand...

What I did to you was only a taste of what I can do.

http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/54607-blue-china-group-ltd-settles-spam-lawsuit-myspace.html

You finally did smarten up and admit defeat at least, though it's still questionable whether your dignity is really left intact.
 
bluechinagroup said:
Moxie on the other hand is one of LukeP's top students. The guy has intelligence, but for whatever reason is pretty fixated on this controlled demolition theory.
Click to expand...

Libertarians often get mistaken as hardcore Republicans by Democrats, and vice versa. In a similar manner, looking at 9/11 from a certain angle can make Alex Jones think you work for the government and others think you are Alex Jones himself. This is what I was getting at when I linked to the black or white fallacy thing.

This is the actual paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

It was published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and it has survived the scrutiny of a peer review.
Click to expand...

I saw MIT and thought this was the one that I already commented on.

The paper you linked to was first released on SEPTEMBER 13, 2001. The FEMA and NIST investigators had limited access to physical evidence, but at least that was more than whatever the writers of this paper had to go by as they scrambled to put it together.

The investigation was criticized by some engineers and lawmakers in the U.S. It had little funding, no authority to demand evidence, and limited access to the WTC site. One major point of contention at the time was that the cleanup of the WTC site was resulting in the destruction of the majority of the buildings' steel components.[60] Indeed, when NIST published its final report, it noted "the scarcity of physical evidence"

Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several independent engineers and academics support this paper.
Click to expand...

In 2012? Maybe they support it as a possibility, but my understanding is that it at least partly contradicts the "inward bowing" theory, which is the current one put forth by the government.

Nothing that LukeP has said so far has been supported by peer review.
Click to expand...

Articles, letters and comments by controlled demolition advocates have been published in scientific and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter titled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," was published by Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[28] A few months later, in July 2008, an article titled "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," was published by Ryan, Gourley and Jones in the Environmentalist.[29] Later that same year, in October 2008, a comment by James R. Gourley, describing what he considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper, was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.[30] And in April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, appear to be present in samples of the dust.[12][31]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers - There is also this, which was published in the Journal of Aluminum Production and Processing. It theorizes that explosions led to the collapse, but not that the explosions were caused by bombs.
 
Moxie said:
Articles, letters and comments by controlled demolition advocates have been published in scientific and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter titled "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," was published by Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[28] A few months later, in July 2008, an article titled "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," was published by Ryan, Gourley and Jones in the Environmentalist.[29] Later that same year, in October 2008, a comment by James R. Gourley, describing what he considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper, was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.[30] And in April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, appear to be present in samples of the dust.[12][31]
Click to expand...

That's cool and all, but the very same wikipedia article you linked says

wikipedia said:
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][75]
Click to expand...

The papers you cited may have been posted in respected journals, but they still aren't supported by mainstream science. If one of those does start gaining a lot of support from peers, that would certainly be interesting though.
 
The wikipedia entry also says one of the authors was placed on leave by his university and he then resigned.

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][75]
Click to expand...

2 = guy who co-wrote the paper released on 9-13-12

75 = the government


It would be interesting to see a poll of members of the "structural engineering community", especially one where they could remain anonymous, so they wouldn't have to worry about being placed on leave and such.
 
Moxie said:
It would be interesting to see a poll of members of the "structural engineering community", especially one where they could remain anonymous, so they wouldn't have to worry about being placed on leave and such.
Click to expand...

The other reactions listed in the wikipedia article you linked seems to further indicate that the mainstream scientists, engineers, and academics are skeptical.

I do 100% agree that such a poll would be interesting and an eye opener without a doubt though.
 
Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wikipedia said:
Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year as co-chair with James H. Fetzer until Jones and a majority of the scholars members left the organization. From mid-November 2006 until the end of that year, Jones, Fetzer and a series of other researchers and individuals engaged in an open dispute about the direction the organization should take. Fetzer claimed that Jones wanted to suppress exotic weaponry theories about 9/11, specifically those of Judy Wood which suggested that the destruction of the WTC may have been caused by directed energy weapons.[44] Jones and others examined the claims — such as the hypothesis that mini-nukes were used on the WTC Towers — and delineated empirical reasons for rejecting them.[45]
Click to expand...

You really have to be off in the deep end when even Jones considers you a crackpot. What a bunch of rather eccentric fellows. It must be great having a beer with these guys! :drinkup:

I also like the fact that Jones' first paper was published in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom