Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell Harassed by 9-11 Deniers?


She may be beginning to see the downside of associating herself with these wackjobs:

A 9/11 truth organization supporting and attempting to speak with Rosie O'Donnell about her recent comments regarding the September 11 attacks outside the ABC studios were harassed and intimidated by New York City police, a scene that caused O'Donnell to prematurely leave.

O'Donnell has been attacked by Neo-Con webzines over the last few days but completely ignored by the corporate media for controversial comments questioning the official 9/11 story.

Police were out in force to harass a group of about twenty 9/11 truth movement activists, led by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change, telling them to take down signs, turn off video cameras and cell phones, checking ID's and taking information - despite the fact that they were simply news gathering and exercising their first amendment.


Nico has more on the bizarre scene:

After a few unsuccessful attempts at the lobby entries on opposite sides of the building, finally at around 11:30 AM, 911tvfakery.net was able to get a DVD with 100 of the best 9/11 Video MashUps (incl. evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery) personally delivered to O'Donnell with help of "Freddie", a flower delivery guy, who sticked the DVD and a leaflet into a flower buquet present for Rosie and promised to hand it over...


The only thing that could make this better is if Rosie becomes a no-planer!

911tvfakery.net arrived at 9:00 AM and tried already to hand out leaflets to the waiting audience, with mixed reactions. At around 9:30 AM the local ny911 activist group around Luke Rudkowski, R Rod and Tom Foti arrived at the spot and started to deliver their leaflest and DVDS as well (911bloglines reported).

The group incl. NY911Truth and CHANGE members also tried to deliver a DVD, leaflets and a T-Shirt Birthday Present to Rosie O'Donell, but got rejected several times by security.

At around 10:00 AM ABC7 decided to call the police. 3 cars then joined the peaceful protest group, always switching between two doors of the lobbies.

Apprx. 30-40 Protestors chanted "9/11 was an Inside Job", "Stop the 9/11 Cover-Up- join Rosie's View" or sang "Happy Birthday to you, Rosie". The protest was succesfully organized withy enough leaflets, banners and DVDs.


Update: Stephen Lemons has more thoughts on Rosie.

Update II: Greg Gutfeld checks in here. Damien Penny has some good news for Ro.

Update III: Ron (Pomeroo) Wieck was there and reports (in the comments):

I made the mistake of attending the gathering of tinfoil-hatters who celebrated Rosie O'Donnell's birthday and her second coming-out-of-the-closet, this time as a 911 fantasist.

Nico Haupt was there. I asked him if he was himself or one of his impersonators. He is pretty affable and was kind enough to sort out the various factions that have emerged in Twooferdom. Somewhat ungraciously, I had made a remark about "no-planer no-brainers," and was reminded that he does not believe that commercial airliners struck the WTC, the images seared into the memories of milllions of viewers being examples of "video fakery." Again displaying my characteristic tactlessness, I commented that the thousands of New Yorkers who actually watched the second plane hit from the street and their office windows know that he isn't telling the truth. He muttered something about conflicting eyewitness accounts and liars, at which point our conversation trailed off.

The rest of the small crowd (twenty or so) contained the usual loons. These strange people cling tenaciously to their thoroughly debunked factoids, each having his or her particular favorite. One guy swallows Fetzer's nonsensical fable about the "missing" 2.3 trillions dollars. I tried explaining that there's nothing to debate: he could simply read Rumsfeld's speech for himself. But he didn't want to be confused. An attractive young woman is firmly convinced that Osama continues to deny any involvement in the attacks of 9/11. Another guy said that the suspicious trading in airline stocks proves that it was an inside job. Several believe that demolition experts are incapable of recognizing a top-down demolition. And two or three of them went on and on about the molten "steel."

Mark Roberts has made it his mission to hurl facts at some of the hardest heads since the heyday of Jake LaMotta. He has more stamina than I. The whole phenomenon is amazing--and very sad.

Labels: , , ,

65 Comments:

At 21 March, 2007 19:06, Blogger texasjack said...

I think if Charles Manson said 911 was an inside job, these loons would worship him.

 
At 21 March, 2007 20:08, Blogger b. j. edwards said...

9/11 Truthers Disrupt Dallas Anti-War Protest

BNN News Alert - Wednesday, March 21, 2007

 
At 21 March, 2007 20:10, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Rosie O'Donnell harrassed by 9-11 Deniers?
Where the hell did you get that?

Was this headline a blatant lie along with the picture to make 9/11 truthers look like they were actually harassing Rosie?
Dam the propaganda is getting thicker by the day by you blokes.

I've seen lies on this blog many times but this takes the cake.

The article you linked to stated Rosie left the other way because of the police presence not because truthers were harrassing her.
Why was there a police presence harassing citizens who were practicing their first amendment rights?

Pat, why did you need to tell a lie by a question in your headline when nothing in the article you linked to suggests Rosie was harrassed by truthers?

Maybe that big hit number you bragged about is really a sign that your bullshit needs to pick up to convince general viewers that truthers act like extremists.

For the non-regular readers, the answer to Pat's propaganda question is NO, Rosie was not harassed by 9-11 activists, police, or anyone else.

Remember, Screwloosechange is not a factual blog, but merely propaganda to support the offical conspiracy theory that is loosing credibility by the day.

 
At 21 March, 2007 20:32, Blogger Mark said...

Funniest post ever. Welcome to the "truth," Rosie!

 
At 21 March, 2007 20:33, Blogger Alex said...

Yeah, eh? :) They really deserve eachother.

 
At 21 March, 2007 21:07, Blogger Richard said...

Was this headline a blatant lie along with the picture to make 9/11 truthers look like they were actually harassing Rosie?

Only if your stupid enough to think that 1010WINS is a truther organization.

 
At 22 March, 2007 00:14, Blogger Fred said...

Oh well, now that the evidence for TV Fakery is overwhelming the loose screws pushing the Osama Bin Laden story are on the run. Goodbye, Rumsfeld. Goodbye, Ashcroft. Goodbye, Gonzales. Goodbye, Cheney... I guess we have to start at the top before it filters down to the loose screw crew.

 
At 22 March, 2007 00:26, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

TV fakery? Are you a no-planer, fred? You guys are my favourites - a few more like you and 9/11 'Truth' will be completely dead, crushed under the weight of its own ridiculousness. Keep trying to persuade people that the Naudet brothers faked their film!

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:26, Blogger CHF said...

Enjoy life with da twoofer children, Rosie.

Remember: if you back down in ANY WAY from your initial position you'll be accused of being a sell out to the NWO.

Remember, Screwloosechange is not a factual blog, but merely propaganda to support the offical conspiracy theory that is loosing credibility by the day.

Really? You mean that's finally been a peer-reviewed engineering report on the demolitions?

Where can I find it, Swing?

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:28, Blogger CHF said...

BTW, notice how a grand total of "about twenty" twoofers turned up to show their support for Rosie.

Just in case she needed proof of what a fringe group these fuckos are.

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:38, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:40, Blogger pomeroo said...

I posted the following on JREF:

I made the mistake of attending the gathering of tinfoil-hatters who celebrated Rosie O'Donnell's birthday and her second coming-out-of-the-closet, this time as a 911 fantasist.

Nico Haupt was there. I asked him if he was himself or one of his impersonators. He is pretty affable and was kind enough to sort out the various factions that have emerged in Twooferdom. Somewhat ungraciously, I had made a remark about "no-planer no-brainers," and was reminded that he does not believe that commercial airliners struck the WTC, the images seared into the memories of milllions of viewers being examples of "video fakery." Again displaying my characteristic tactlessness, I commented that the thousands of New Yorkers who actually watched the second plane hit from the street and their office windows know that he isn't telling the truth. He muttered something about conflicting eyewitness accounts and liars, at which point our conversation trailed off.

The rest of the small crowd (twenty or so) contained the usual loons. These strange people cling tenaciously to their thoroughly debunked factoids, each having his or her particular favorite. One guy swallows Fetzer's nonsensical fable about the "missing" 2.3 trillions dollars. I tried explaining that there's nothing to debate: he could simply read Rumsfeld's speech for himself. But he didn't want to be confused. An attractive young woman is firmly convinced that Osama continues to deny any involvement in the attacks of 9/11. Another guy said that the suspicious trading in airline stocks proves that it was an inside job. Several believe that demolition experts are incapable of recognizing a top-down demolition. And two or three of them went on and on about the molten "steel."

Mark Roberts has made it his mission to hurl facts at some of the hardest heads since the heyday of Jake LaMotta. He has more stamina than I. The whole phenomenon is amazing--and very sad.

 
At 22 March, 2007 06:47, Blogger Pepik said...

I'd say if you try to give someone a present and get turned away "several times" by security, that's harrassment.

For swing dangler, that's called courtship.

 
At 22 March, 2007 07:09, Blogger PhilBiker said...

TV fakery? Are you a no-planer, fred? You guys are my favourites - a few more like you and 9/11 'Truth' will be completely dead, crushed under the weight of its own ridiculousness. Keep trying to persuade people that the Naudet brothers faked their film!

Not to be confused with the distinctly non-ridiculous "Star Wars Beam Weapon" crowd.

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:13, Blogger Andreas said...

"One guy swallows Fetzer's nonsensical fable about the "missing" 2.3 trillions dollars. I tried explaining that there's nothing to debate: he could simply read Rumsfeld's speech for himself."

?
care to explain why the missing 2.3 trillions are a fable?
and i don't mean any crazy add-on story Fetzer might have attached to that , but the simple fact that 2.3 trillions are/were missin as announced on 9-10...? we all know there are mainstream newsreports about that out there

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Really? You mean that's finally been a peer-reviewed engineering report on the demolitions?
Where can I find it, Swing?


I bet you can find it when the NIST releases its data,evidence and models, eh CHF?

Probably next to the papers peer reviewed by tour guides an MBA students.

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:28, Blogger Manny said...

care to explain why the missing 2.3 trillions are a fable?
and i don't mean any crazy add-on story Fetzer might have attached to that , but the simple fact that 2.3 trillions are/were missin as announced on 9-10...? we all know there are mainstream newsreports about that out there


Fair question. It wasn't missing, it was just poorly accounted for. And it was over a period of years and years. What Rumsfeld was doing was going on a big campaign to update the Pentagon's internal accounting systems to the level used by large conglomerates like the one he came from. And he didn't mention it only on September 10th, like some of the twoofers would have you believe. He mentioned it a lot, to pretty much everyone who would listen. And, as it happens, they eventually got it all sorted out. It's been addressed previously on this blog, here. Somewhere else I linked to where they 'found' the money again; I'll try to track it down for you later if you need it.

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:47, Blogger CHF said...

I bet you can find it when the NIST releases its data,evidence and models, eh CHF?

Probably next to the papers peer reviewed by tour guides an MBA students.


In other words: "No CHF, I don't have any peer-reviewed expert reports that back up my theories. And no, I also can't give a half decent explanation for why the structural engineers of our planet are not siding with me."

That's all you had to say, Swing.

I guess you can at least take comfort from the fact that the most recent twoofer show of strength drew a whopping 20 people!

 
At 22 March, 2007 08:58, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Fred said: "Goodbye, Rumsfeld."

Phew. A little slow, aren't you?

 
At 22 March, 2007 09:35, Blogger BG said...

Another Truther Conf. in the Offing:

In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", to be held 2-4 August 2007 in Madison, WI

Is Jim Fetzer an Effective Agent for Exposing the Truth of 9/11

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:07, Blogger texasjack said...

In other words: "No CHF, I don't have any peer-reviewed expert reports that back up my theories. And no, I also can't give a half decent explanation for why the structural engineers of our planet are not siding with me."

CHF, you beat me to it. However, when I typed:
"Probably next to the papers peer reviewed by tour guides an MBA students" into my trooth translator I got this:
"In other words, I have no real experts,no facts, so I'll try to discredit compilers of experts and real evidence because they are so effective at destroying the trooth movement's phony facts. I will support anything that moves, even a father of two who is glad his wife got killed, as long as he agrees with my phony experts and my flimsy facts."

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Mark Roberts has made it his mission to hurl facts at some of the hardest heads since the heyday of Jake LaMotta.

Is this Mark Roberts, the tour guide you speak of?

Chf Ok, I will play. I could have said no, but I decided to justify the no with factual content based upon the engineering communities own statements and also to prove your point erroneous.

The engineering community that you speak of have they:

A) Have they had access to video and pictorial evidence that the NIST has?

B)Have they viewed the computer models the NIST made in order to check for accuracy?

C)Are they aware of the numerous witnesses who reported explosions in the sublevels and at street level?

D)Did they take into account the head SE comments and white papers?
Or did gravity become a hell of alot more powerful after Skilling died?

E)Has the NIST report been peer reviewed and published in an Engineering journal?

F)Are they aware that Hamburger, a key member of the NIST, was unaware of how many core collums there were?

G)Were they aware that the buildings were commented on in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964. "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." Such figures matter because the design live load of the Towers exceeds their own weight. The News Record also stated "The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities. [..] One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction."

H. Does the world engineering community realize the towers contained mechanical equipment floors between the 41st-42nd and 75-76th floors about which the 1/1/70 issue of Engineering News Record stated, "To accommodate the heavy loads, the [mechanical equipment] floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs" in contrast to the "typical truss floor joists and steel decking." Unaware of the number of core columns, unaware that on some floors beams rather than trusses tied the cores to the perimeters, Mr. Hamburger was also little if any concerned with the massive cross-linked, cross-girded cores of incredible structural integrity that gave way without apparent resistance during the Towers' collapses and largely disintegrated in the process.

I.Are engineers aware that NASA reports of temperature surfaces in the neighborhood of 1400 degrees Fahrenheit many days after the collapse?

"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped." -Mr. Hamburger, Key Member of the NIST.

Ever wonder who told him no bombs had been detonated?


I'm sure you will agree that the answer is No to the above questions.

Which invalidates your point completely.

Thanks for playing, CHF, but your lame excuse has been defeated once again. Keep trying though, maybe somehow you can come up with the reason for the global collapse of those buildings without having to rely the awesome and total destructive power of gravity!

In fact, I think the U.S. military ought to start looking at weapons research using gravity. It completley destroyed 3 buildings on 9/11! Turning two of them into a huge rolling dust cloud! Now that is shock and awe!

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:31, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

apparently you think the engineering community can't judge the WTC collapses because they don't have the evidence to do so.

Care to present me with some quotes from engineers explaining how they don't have enough to judge?

There are engineers in the world from every racial, political, national, ethnic background.

Surely there must be a fair number who have said "I can't tell because I don't have proof."

So who are those people, Swing?

Name the engineers who have expressed these concerns.

I'd hate to think you're putting words in their mouths.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:33, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Texaswhack
peer-reviewed expert reports that back up my theories

How can you have peer reviewed expert reports if you can't get access to all of the data the NIST used to validate or invalidate their theory?

Nevermind, Jack, I know the answer.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:40, Blogger CHF said...

C'mon Swinger,

I know you can't name experts who agree with you, but at least try to come up with a few who don't feel they can judge the collapses because of a coverup of proof.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:51, Blogger texasjack said...

Hey, Swing-ding-a-ling, what qualifications to you possess to determine if the NIST report can't be peer-reviewed? Why has there been peer-review to support the NIST report? Why can't you answer CHF's question about there being no concerns to the world-wide engineering community about the NIST report? Your diversions are getting weaker and weaker.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:59, Blogger zippychippy said...

Well, maybe we'll have that new investigation after all! Rosie is loaded and I'm sure, with her deep concern regarding 9/11, she'll put up the money needed.

 
At 22 March, 2007 10:59, Blogger pomeroo said...

"E)Has the NIST report been peer reviewed and published in an Engineering journal?"

Absolutely priceless!

No, Swingie, NIST, an agency that attempts to explain why buildings fall down, did not publish its ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, diagrams, photos, analysis, and commentary in an academic journal. The 200-plus scientists and engineers who produced the research made it available TO THE PUBLIC. There's a difficult concept coming up, so pay attention: it was reviewed by ALL the scientists and engineers and demolition experts the agency consulted with.
Does any of this register?

I didn't think so.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:05, Blogger pomeroo said...

"Is this Mark Roberts, the tour guide you speak of?"

Yes, it's Mark Roberts, the tour guide who knows more about the myths concocted by conspiracy liars than any other living soul. It's the same Mark Roberts who completely destroyed the Loose Change boys on 'Hardfire' and exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the 911 fantasy movement.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:12, Blogger Stevew said...

I love the way sd does a little rewording so it will appear to be something other that the same old crap. Too bad he will not provide a list of qualified experts that agree with his fantisy

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:32, Blogger CHF said...

Come on, Swinger.

Dazzled us with those engineers who doubt NIST.

Show us those experts who say NIST's report is flawed.

Show us who's claming "coverup!"

I'm sure just about every structural engineer in the world has an opinion on the WTC collapses. They're only the most famous building collapses in history!

So which engineers are doubting the official story? Which ones complain about a lack of proof?

We're all waiting for that list Swing. Don't let us down.

 
At 22 March, 2007 11:41, Blogger Alex said...

I love the fact that swingie's excuse for no engineers coming forward is that they "don't have enough evidence", yet he, ofcourse, knows EXACTLY what happened, even though he has even less evidence.

 
At 22 March, 2007 14:56, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

I would actually like to see the structural blueprints get published, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. The time involved in scanning them would be ridiculous and the file size for a digital distribution would be egregious.

 
At 22 March, 2007 20:42, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF-
Well when NSE publishes an article calling for the release of models to check for accuracy that is a small clue.

When other engineers raise questions but fear for their careers that is another clue.
Prof. Jones has a nice collection of those.

One other request as you have failed to answer my questions,
1)How many engineering firms across the globe supported the NIST report? Or is that support by silence? Or is that critical of the report by silence? Tough logic trap either way.

Why are there critiques of the NIST report anyway? Have you thought about that? If it were fool proof, if it were accurate beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no room to critique it. It is that plain and simple.

The NIST consisted of over 200 folks. Great! Those people or firms wouldn't have any political connections or federal contracts or reasons for ignoring certain evidence or working from the conclusion backwards would they?

Naahh surely not.

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in near free-fall event. That is classic. And I'm not a structural engineer and I can find a problem with that!
Geez, NIST, how do we build better buildings that resist the explosive power of gravity, unlike the WTC1,2, and 7?


A few engineers off the top of my head. I won't list Judy Wood so start with:

1. William Rice-William P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

2.Colin Bailey-University of Manchester, professor of structural engineering.

3.From another structural engineer:
"A couple of months back I examined [Jones] claims in detail. Initially I was a bit incredulous… so I downloaded all the official reports basically expecting to find holes in the good prof's hypothesis.
I'm a professional civil engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of major structures and I was just astounded at what I found. In my COO days if my staff had put up reports like that relating to a disaster on my patch, there is no way they would have been accepted and I would have been asking some very tough questions: The [official] reports are not at all convincing.
That they are not is a serious worry.
Regards, Ted [last name withheld pending permission]

4.Author: Brian (6:01 pm)
May 5, 200
1. Email to Prof Jones from a structural engineer in Texas:

"It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate on our designs.

I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess they have run out of ideas on Building 7.

You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?
If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers (who are still being commissioned to design high rises elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.
So astute that the president promptly declared 9/11 an Act of War (the truth, sort of). This relieved the designers of having to defend themselves for negligent design. No professional liability policies cover war (because of exposure to explosives etc.), so no deep pockets to make a lawsuit worth while. So no engineer singing to a jury…"

5. I could bring up the Head SE, John Skilling and what he thought would bring down his buildings back in 1993 after the first truck bomb attack, but he is dead so you will ignore him, despite his title and what he said about his own building. LOL. Now that is denying.

Do you also ignore Einstein, Newton, etc and their statements because they are dead? I suspect you do!

Anyway we are simply rehashing the same thing I've proven over and over. Nice dodge on the questions though. Typical. That is why posting here gets boring by the day.

One last question, how is your lung capacity, Mark Roberts? Still trust the EPA like you trust the rest of the Feds?

 
At 22 March, 2007 21:47, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

I knew the moment I called your bluff that you'd come back with more of your usual lame shit.

You claimed that engineers can't validate NIST's claims because they lack the information to do so. When asked to prove this with names and examples, you come back with....

- engineers don't spreak out for fear of losing their jobs. Yup, they're ALL gonna keep quiet on the issue of mass murder for fear of losing a job.

- the NIST experts have political connections and contracts and thus they ignore evidence.

The usual lame explantions for your shocking lack of expert backing.

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in near free-fall event.

More bullshit.

NIST explained why the towers fell and why they fell in the speed they did. The problem is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of 120,000 ton dynamic load smashing through a building.

As for actual engineers...

1. William Rice a civil (not strctural) engineer - author of "why the towers fell: two theories;" in which he makes it clear that he's not even familiar with the NIST findings and basically parrots the usual twoofer BS.

He writes: If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength.

You mean like, say, outer support beams being pulled inwards???

He also claims that "molten metal" is a "byproduct of explosives."

Complete fucking lunacy.

2. Colin Bailey - wants NIST to show visualizations. Fair enough. But he makes no mention of opposing their conclusions.

3. A source who supposedly e-mailed Mr. Thermite. "another structural engineer" named "Ted."

I can present you with a dozen anonymous sources to, Swing. Anyone can.

4. Oh look - "a structural engineer in Texas" who also e-mailed Mr. Thermite.

I'm amazed that you would advertise your desperation like that, Swing. I asked for names of engineers - not a list of no-namers who allegedly e-mailed an academic fraud.

5. I could bring up the Head SE, John Skilling...

But he died 3 years before 9/11 so using him to question a 2005 NIST report is rather dishonest and is, in fact, quite pathetic.

So let's recap: you presented one civil engineer who's almost as retarded as you are, one structural engineer who wants to see models, two useless anonymous sources and a guy who died in 1998.

So really, you presented ONE qualified guy who asks for models. That's your proof that engineers can't judge the NIST report. ONE GUY!

Your problem remains the same, Swing: YOU LACK EXPERT BACKING!

So when do you plan on calling some engineers in order to change this sorry state of affairs?

I've only been urging you to call experts for 3-4 months now. But for some reason you don't. Why?

 
At 22 March, 2007 21:58, Blogger CHF said...

I suppose I should give you some credit for not using Judy Wood as a source.

I guess even you have to draw the line somewhere before "laser beams from space," huh?

Keep in mind though that Judy was the twoof movement's #1 engineer until a few months ago and, last I checked, is still a "scholar."

That in itself is rather revealing as to the kind of intellectual firepower you kooks bring to the table, don't ya think?

 
At 23 March, 2007 04:56, Blogger Alex said...

I suppose I should give you some credit for not using Judy Wood as a source.

When that's the best compliment you can give the guy, you know there's something seriously wrong with him.

 
At 23 March, 2007 06:27, Blogger CHF said...

How many engineering firms across the globe supported the NIST report? Or is that support by silence? Or is that critical of the report by silence?

Critical by silence? Brilliant.

The WTC collapses were the most famous and talked-about building collapses in history.

If there was anything wrong with the NIST report engineers around the world would be crying foul.

Yet they're not.

So....two options here:

1) their silence indicates approval since there's nothing for them to add.

2) their silence indicates that they have problems with the NIST report.

Think of it this way, Swing: when you have nothing to say about the quality of your running water does that usually mean that the water's fine or that there's a problem with it?

When someone doesn't complain about the tires on their car, does that likely mean the tires are OK or that they're flat?

The simplest way to prove your claims would be to just CALL UP ENGINEERS AND HAVE A WORD WITH THEM. But we all know you're a chicken shit when it comes to actual research.

 
At 23 March, 2007 07:15, Blogger texasjack said...

Ted the engineer, choo choo. LOL
Swing, here is what peer review looks like:


Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts
Jiun-Shyan Chen, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Erik A. Johnson, Ph.D., University of Southern California
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Dinesh R. Katti, Ph.D., P.E., North Dakota State University
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Brett F. Sanders, Ph.D., University of California, Irvine
Khaled W. Shahwan, Ph.D., DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Andrew Smyth, Ph.D., Columbia University
George Z. Voyiadjis, Ph.D., Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado

These are the professionals who reviewed and approved this paper: "Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?" by Bazant in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Got anything like that? Are all these people involved in the conspiracy?

 
At 23 March, 2007 07:51, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Name the engineers who have expressed these concerns.

I don't recall you asking for structural engineers. Thanks for moving the goal posts.

I listed a couple off the top of my head. I don't know how many engineers who have read the 10,000 page report to find fault with it.
I don't know how many engineers are in the world today.
There are case examples to show what happens when someone goes public questioning the 9/11 attacks. Jobs are lost, the tar and feathers make an appearance, and the Ad Hom flows fully.

Good dodge on Skilling, I expected as much.

You do have a point though. I don't have a full list of those who question the report.
I can provide you hypothetical reasons why someone or a firm may decide not to go public.

But I would ask, how many engineers have seen the data to arrive at their own conclusions?
Of course you can't answer that because the NIST won't release it. Why wouldn't they release the 1000's of piece of visual evidence they have?

Again, you dodge everything else in my response. Of course, dodgeball must be the favorite sport for you.

And finally, science to you is a matter of authority, which of course is erroneous. But that is the only measure you have to defend the OS. Authority. You would make a great subject in a monarchy or facist dictatorship, or a wonderful Nazi citizen in Germany.


How many physics professionals have came out publically critiqing the report? Is physics a component of engineering?

There is a website under design now that will feature engineers and architects who question 9/11. So time will tell, CHF.

Would you support the release of all the data to the public, to the engineering community that the NIST used to create their report in order to check for accuracy and to improve existing and future designs?
I suspect no, because the authorities choose not to.

Hey you never did answer my question: If the NIST report is the end all report, why are there critiques, holes, and fallacies found within?

Oh yeah, nevermind, you dodged that question too.



Kind of like the Towers, eh?
Historically it was a first.
Numerous theories have been presented.
The facts don't match the theory.
But the report is the final say.
How can I fact check the report if I the data won't be released? I can't. I'm FORCED to accept it! Despite the historical record of lies from the Feds, despite the historical record of high rise structures, despite the numerous flaws in the report itself, despite the conflict of interests in the investigators, despite the fact the conclusion was reached before the investigation, despite the overwhelming evidence of explosives that were ignored, despite the critiques of numerous folks, despite the first thoughts of professionals, despite the tests that NIST conducted that contradicted their own conclusion,despite the 9/11 Commissions deferral to the report even when they have been lied to and set up to fail, you know the list goes on and on.
But I'm FORCED to accept the report for what it is.
And what do I get out of that report?

Do I get answers on how to prevent a global collapse from fire and damage in the future for the sake of human life? Nope.

Do I get new information on how to design structures to resist global collapse from fire and damage that will save lives and money?? Nope.

I will be sure to spend no time in steel framed high rise structures in the near future thanks to the NIST.

BUT WHAT DO I GET...a reccomendation for better fireproofing that will resist a shot gun blast and escape routes for occupants. Now that is great advice for 20 million dollars and 5 years worth of work from 200 some people some of which have federal contracts for millions of dollars and complete conflict of interests.


Swing: when you have nothing to say about the quality of your running water does that usually mean that the water's fine or that there's a problem with it?

I would assume there is nothing wrong with the water.You all know what happens when assumptions are confronted by facts, however.

If the water color changes? Does the water pressure drop? What leads me to beleve something is wrong with the water?
Will the local authorities release the historical record of the water?
Will they let me see the tests done to the water?
Can I view the chemical composition of the water?
Are other people having problems with their water?
If the local authorities won't release the information, I'm FORCED to accept their statements as fact.

Your elementary examples are a false analogy of course, so I'm not sure why I'm addressing the point. Bored I suppose.

\

But then again, we are dealing with current and future construction methods, current construction of high rise structures, and best of all the safety of human lives not water and tires.

How did the structural engineer's use the advice in the NIST report while building the new WTC 7? Or did they? To be honest I don't know. Do you?

Colin How can he oppose the conclusion if he can't check for accuracy? Which was what his point was! Can't question it if you can't get to it, can you?? Kind of a catch 22 for the engineering community, isn't it?

Oh well, you did make a good point. I didn't list 200 people to oppose the 200 that formed the report.

One last point, how can you critique engineers when you yourself are not one?

Oh wait, science is not a matter of authority when you want to use it to support your argument. But only when 9/11 OS is concerned.

Gotcha.

 
At 23 March, 2007 08:20, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Texas ROFLMAO!
Great list of folks, but did you noticed the date of publication in your source?
9/13/01! Wow, that is some quick work with no forensic examination. Within the same time periods, others thought explosive devices were used.

One, it is a hypothesis. Two, the entire paper depended upon prolonged heating and weakening of the internal cores which no time frame is given and only guesses as to the temperature. But the author states the temperature must have been at that level to prove his theory correct.Wow. Good science there.
It is because I say it is! LOL

Designing tall buildings to withstand this sort of attack seems next to impossible.What
was not considered in design was the temperature that can develop in the ensuing fire.

It is quite apparent this 'professional' had no clue about Skilling assessment of his own towers, the white papers on the towers as well as the design of said structures. Of course Bazant wouldn't know after writing his paper 2 days after the attack.

Finally, Texas, I would expect a source like this from you, after all the title is Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple
Analysis
for simple minded people.

What gets me is this is essentially the same conclusion the NIST arrived at even after their own tests showed otherwise.

Apparently everything is larger in Texas, except the brain.

Which collapse theory do you prescribe to?

 
At 23 March, 2007 09:27, Blogger pomeroo said...

Swing Dumpster wrote:

"Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in near free-fall event. That is classic. And I'm not a structural engineer and I can find a problem with that!
Geez, NIST, how do we build better buildings that resist the explosive power of gravity, unlike the WTC1,2, and 7?"

It's funny. He has richly earned his reputation as one of the densest, most unintelligent conspiracy liars vexing the rationalists with silly, baseless nonsense, and yet he has managed to state NIST's purpose: How do we build better structures?

Dumpster, Your inability to comprehend NIST's exhaustive explanation of the event you misrepresent so consistently is entirely your problem.

 
At 23 March, 2007 09:30, Blogger pomeroo said...

Swing Dumpster wrote:
"Hey you never did answer my question: If the NIST report is the end all report, why are there critiques, holes, and fallacies found within?

Oh yeah, nevermind, you dodged that question too."

Actually, Swingie, you and your fellow liars ALWAYS dodge this one.
Tell us about a few of those "holes and fallacies." There aren't any, you know.

 
At 23 March, 2007 10:19, Blogger Stevew said...

P
sd never stops with the same 5000 words of irrelivency and jawjacking, it is almost funny

 
At 23 March, 2007 11:01, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Hey you never did answer my question: If the NIST report is the end all report, why are there critiques, holes, and fallacies found within?

By the same reasoning, if the 911 conspiracy theories are so true, then why don't the brightest and best mind in society support it, and only second rate actors, comedians and pseudo-scholars support it?

 
At 23 March, 2007 11:47, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

To Swing:

1) William Rice is either a moron or someone who is intentionally trying to mislead someone with fuzzy maths. He also is not a structural engineer, his work on those "buildings" was probably the design of HVAC systems and maybe went as far as dampers.

2) Colin Bailey wants the NIST to explain the failure more, he does not allege that it is wrong. A quick google on him quickly turns that information up.

3) Probable strawman

4) Probable strawman

5) Jeff Skilling never expected an airplane to hit the towers with that much velocity. He underestimated the force of impact by 4 to 9 times and didn't ever include an uncontrollable fire in his assumptions.

Engineers have a code of ethics that we adhere to in a manner that's almost fanatical. If a client is pressuring us to do something illegal or morally abject, most engineers will find a way out of the contract. There's a reason there are no such things as corrupt engineer jokes like there are corrupt lawyers or corrupt doctor jokes. It is because a corrupt engineer is such a rare event that no one expects it to happen.

Oh, and I am an engineer, I can critque them and actually know wtf I'm talking about.

 
At 23 March, 2007 12:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

By the same reasoning, if the 911 conspiracy theories are so true
Why would you answer a question with a question? To avoid the answer?

What exactly is a pseudo-scholar, anyway? Is that PhD degree from Pseudo University? Is that what PhD stands for? I get the PD, but what about the H?

Actually they need to be investigated


Tourguide You might want to read those critiques that exist.

Oh and feel free to link to where I have 'lied', or is that a JREF tactic your using again over here? Or is they teach you that in tour guide school? I will have to try it sometime.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
http://911research.com/reviews/kevin_ryan/
newstandard.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
essays/nist/index.html

Hey Tourguide, debunker of college students, tell me do you still trust the EPA? Do you still trust the Bush Administration?

Do you ever wonder why workers and military troops were given breathing masks 2 days later around the WTC 7 site but others weren't?

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:47, Blogger CHF said...

I don't know how many engineers are in the world today.

The ASCE alone has 130,000+.

There are case examples to show what happens when someone goes public questioning the 9/11 attacks. Jobs are lost, the tar and feathers make an appearance, and the Ad Hom flows fully.

Yeah Swing - they're willing to stay silent on mass murder for the sake of a job.

Fuck off.

Good dodge on Skilling, I expected as much.

He died in 1998. 9/11 was 2001. NIST's report was 2005.

What exactly did I dodge?

You do have a point though. I don't have a full list of those who question the report.

So on what grounds do you claim that engineers cannot judge the NIST report if you don't even know if they have a problem with it or not???

I can provide you hypothetical reasons why someone or a firm may decide not to go public.

In other words, complete guesswork.

NIST released 10,000 pages, Swing. They also released a shorter verion (280+ pages).

If there was a problem with it, the world's engineers would let us know.

But that is the only measure you have to defend the OS. Authority.

In the case of engineering, authority does not equal Nazi Germany, you stupid fuck.

Only an idiot like you would make such a vile comparison.

When it comes to fields like engineering, Authority = EDUCATION!

There is a website under design now that will feature engineers and architects who question 9/11.

Oh really? And which engineers will run this site?

Would you support the release of all the data to the public, to the engineering community that the NIST used to create their report in order to check for accuracy and to improve existing and future designs?

If a significant number of engineers ask for it, then yes. Why not?

If the NIST report is the end all report, why are there critiques, holes, and fallacies found within?

Such as....?

Despite all your bitching and moaning, your situation is as follows:

You and the twoofer cult have a view as to what happened on 9/11 (many views, actually).

In order for any of your claims and opnions to be taken seriously, you're gonna need expert backing.

You currently do not have this expert backing.

So what are you gonna do about it, Swing?

Sit around on the net and complain?

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:50, Blogger Alex said...

Swing is played out. It's coming up on a year now since he started commenting here, and in that time he has provided exactly ZERO evidence to support his accusations. Meanwhile, he's gotten his ass reamed on multiple occasions, and has had the vast majority of his claims torn asunder. Also, he's proven on multiple occasions that he is utterly incapable of understanding even the most basic concepts of logic. I mean, for fucks sake, this is the guy who actually, for the longest time, claimed to have proven that it's possible to prove a negative. He's done. He doesn't deserve to even be acknowledged any more, let alone have his claims seriously considered. These days his posts have as much value as Nico's spam.

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:57, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2007 13:59, Blogger CHF said...

Regardiong my tap water question....

You say:

If the local authorities won't release the information, I'm FORCED to accept their statements as fact.

You could easily find the problems with your water, Swing - regardless of what the evil authorities tell you.

You'd be able to spot a pressure drop, or a colour/smell/taste change.

An equivelant of this in the case of 9/11 would be engineers reacting to NIST by saying:

"I can't understand this part..." or "the info here is complete," or "No way does that make sense."

But you can't produce engineers saying this!

All you can do is make wild-ass guesses as to what engineers think and hope that they one day prove you right by rising up in outrage. In the mean time you're happen to invent insulting bullshit about engineers remaining silent on mass murder for the sake of keeping their jobs.

One last point, how can you critique engineers when you yourself are not one?

Good question Swing. Only problem is that I'm not who critiques engineers. I'm quite satisfied with the engineering consensus when it comes to 9/11.

You're the one who has a problem with it, remember?

Seeing that you are NOT an engineer, I guess that leaves you to answer your own question.

 
At 23 March, 2007 14:06, Blogger CHF said...

Oh and Swing.....

if you really question whether or not engineers have reviewed NIST's conclusions there is a simple way for you to find out.

CALL THEM!

If you want some names, links or phone bumbers just let me know.

 
At 23 March, 2007 15:11, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"By the same reasoning, if the 911 conspiracy theories are so true
Why would you answer a question with a question? To avoid the answer?"

No, to point out the illogical nature of your question, Far more people question the view of the truthers, so by your very own reasoning the truthers could not be right.

But i can see you did not get the concept so next time i will make it simple enough for even you to understand.

 
At 23 March, 2007 20:40, Blogger texasjack said...

Swing is the poster child of this study: "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 
At 24 March, 2007 10:28, Blogger CHF said...

Swing really hit rock bottom with this one:

You would make a great subject in a monarchy or facist dictatorship, or a wonderful Nazi citizen in Germany.

That's right: if you trust engineers when it comes to building collapses then you'd like to live under Hitler to.

For kooks like Swing this is all just a juvenile revolt against authority. No logic behind it; he just wants to be a rebel.

 
At 25 March, 2007 04:23, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Hence the V for Vendetta mask. Swing's the ultimate armchair rebel - OMG liek everyone is a fascist and i am a brave freedom fighter and only my eyes are open but i'm not going to do anything with this staggering insight. It's political masturbation, aptly delivered by a total wanker.

 
At 25 March, 2007 21:37, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Newton's Finally an anyonmous engineer that might be worth talking to.

1) William Rice is either a moron or someone who is intentionally trying to mislead someone with fuzzy maths. He also is not a structural engineer, his work on those "buildings" was probably the design of HVAC systems and maybe went as far as dampers.

Ad-Hom...is that what the code of ethics in the Engineering Community states to do when a fellow engineer who speaks aganist the establishment? If that is anything like establishment science that attacked
Louis Pasteur or Professors Pons and Fleischmen? If so, that gives more reason to find your 'Code of Ethics' laughable. I also find a 'Code of Ethics' just that. A Code. Does violating the code result in jail time? Nope. Do all engineers follow the Code? Nope! So really bringing that issue up is simply style over substance fallacy.

2. No he wanted to check the models for accuracy. Read the NCE article.
As an anyonmous engineer, wouldn't you want the models checked for accuracy?

3 and 4. Probable strawman? Well is it or isn't it? Can't be half-preganant you know. If it is prove it, if it isn't accept it. They at least provided their first name unlike you, but I should accept your statements, but you shouldn't accept theirs? Bad logic.

5. Complete Lie or ignorance! See the WTC Complex White Paper. You will see Skilling fully designed the buildings to be designed for the exact type of impact from an airplane of that size. Look it up!
That paper was published because Skilling and Co. were facing a lawsuit questioning the safety of the structure themselves.
No only that, they expected the fire to kill a lot of people on multiple floors. See Skillings comment in 1993 after the first truck bombing. Let me know if you need the relevant links. Your relying on his partner's 'lack of memory' on the issue. I'm relying on a primary source document. How many other engineers that you associate with have read that White Paper? Maybe that is why they don't question the NIST report.

Now for some questions for someone who can actually answer them:

1.Is it customary for a government al investigate body to withold evidence from the Engineering community? Items such as photographic and video evidence?
The type, amount, and variables they 'tweaked' to arrive at their conclusion?
Doesn't that violate Canon 3.a. for engineers on that investigative body?

2. Is it standard operating procedure to withold computer models from an engineering disaster when the safety of millions of citizens around the globe depend on the saftey of the high rise buildings they live and work in?

3. As a 'engineer' why would the NIST only model the initiation of collapse and not the global collapse of the building, considering the Number 1 Canon of your Code of Ethics?
By not doing so, it is a violation of Number 1 first and foremost! And by you accepting this, do you also violate the first Canon? If so, you contradict your final statement regarding the engineer's Code of Ethics.

4.Is it normal for Engineers to forget key components of the buildings they investigate for 5 years and to outright deny and ignore evidence?

5. In the Canon 5. B. there were engineers that violated that Conduct Code, wouldn't you agree?
Your employer is the Federal Goverment. Your assigned to investigate the collapse and turn around and accept contracts from that same employer?

6. As a result of the NIST report, what recommedations were there to prevent a progressive collapse in current and future buildings?

7.I appreciate the Code of Ethics arguement though. It is a great tool to point out how they were violated by the NIST and its engineers.


Oh and CHF:
8. Another critical examination of the NIST and what happened by another engineering communities
http://www.fireox-international.com/
fire/structdesfire.htm

From the professional community:

In mid-October 2001, our Chief Technical Officer CJ Walsh visited Manhattan in New York, and stayed in Battery Park City (within the restricted zone).
A very close relation of his was working in one of the WTC Towers on 11th September .... by sheer chance, two other cousins were elsewhere that morning.
He also met with a senior structural engineer directly involved in the clear-up of the WTC Incident Site.
May 2002 - Even yet, some of the right questions remain to be asked about what precisely happened on that sunny, fateful Tuesday.

Slowly, some answers are beginning to appear. Unfortunately, there are so many vested interests involved .... faces to save .... and 'sacred cows' to protect.

November 2002 - The Official NIST(USA) WTC Investigation must not only be completely independent ..... it must be clearly shown to be so.

May 2002 - Even yet, some of the right questions remain to be asked about what precisely happened on that sunny, fateful Tuesday.

Slowly, some answers are beginning to appear. Unfortunately, there are so many vested interests involved .... faces to save .... and 'sacred cows' to protect.


We would like to look here at one or two aspects of structural design for fire, and the inadequacy of some current fire engineering concepts. We have raised these concerns before - see the extended version of our contribution to CIB Report No.269 (October 2001)

January 2006 - In Our Opinion .... there is a surprising strength and directness of language in the
Recommendations of the NIST WTC 1 & 2 Final Report.

And while older minds the Report raises fundamental questions about inadequate Fire Engineering Practice not just in the USA, but internationally.

The Professional Fire Engineer must in future act as a full member of an Integrated Multi-Disciplinary Building Design Team.

The Report does not succeed in properly distinguishing between the
structural concepts of 'progressive collapse in fire'and 'disproportionate damage' ..wasn't that the job of the NIST??

In its treatment of 'disability' and 'people with activity limitations',the Report does not go far enough, and is seriously flawed.

If a significant number of engineers ask for it, then yes. Why not?
How many engineers would it take, CHF, 100? 10,000? But one isn't enough, eh? 1 engineer isn't enough? How sacred is the life of people in steel structured buildings to you anyway? Tell that to the next group of people who die in the next global progressive collapse that not a significant number of engineers called for the release of information, so umm sorry for you death. Those types of collapses are becoming quite common now, right? Three in one day.

Your not critiqing engineers?? You essentially called Rice a lunactic didn't you? Dam don't you read your own posts?

CHF, "fuck me and 'I'm the stupid fuck?" I must be getting under your skin.

That's right: if you trust engineers when it comes to building collapses then you'd like to live under Hitler to.

LOL! Nice spin. You should work for Fox News. You know exactly what I meant. Refusing to raise questions in a democratic society just like those good Germans didn't do when the death camps started up. Or is it fear that prevents you from doing so?

In fact, it is your responsibilty as a citizen of the U.S. to ask questions of your government, especially considering its track record. Now be a good citizen and STFU!

Gotcha.

It's coming up on a year now since he started commenting here, and in that time he has provided exactly ZERO evidence to support his accusations.

Alex, you must be the village idiot on this blog because any point I have made has been based upon evidence. You have just ignored it or Ad homed it. That is all you have left, Alex, middle school. When will you be joining your fellow heroes in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, he's gotten his ass reamed on multiple occasions, and has had the vast majority of his claims torn asunder.
Now again, you have 'said' this, but you can't provide a shred of evidence. Ahh the lies...


CHF Please do post the names and numbers of Engineers that I can have a conversation about the NIST report, and the problems with the report.
Will they agree to view my evidence? We shall see.

 
At 25 March, 2007 22:09, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

It really is sad seeing someone tell the world's engineers that they don't know how to do their jobs.

How many engineers would it take, CHF, 100? 10,000? But one isn't enough, eh? 1 engineer isn't enough?

When there are hundreds of thousands of engineers in the world then no - one is not enough. Let's start with dozens, mmmkay?

So far you have one.

Your not critiqing engineers?? You essentially called Rice a lunactic didn't you? Dam don't you read your own posts?

Ok Swing - I critique one engineer (and Rice is a lunatic). You meanwhile, appear to critique the rest of them. THE ASCE alone has 130,000+.

You know exactly what I meant. Refusing to raise questions in a democratic society just like those good Germans didn't do when the death camps started up. Or is it fear that prevents you from doing so?

I'll raise questions when engineers start to speak out against NIST. They've studied these topics for years; I haven't.

What you seem to be saying is that all good citizens should raise questions even when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's the logic of a moron.

Like I said, you're just a playschool revolutionary fighting "the man." All authority is to challenged just for the sake of it.

Tell me Swing - do you not trust authority at all or just when it comes to 9/11?

Do you trust the government inspectors that evaluate the stores you buy food from, and restaurants you eat at? Who tests the drugs you buy? Who built the roads you drive on? Who builds and inspects the buildings you live and work in?

CHF Please do post the names and numbers of Engineers that I can have a conversation about the NIST report, and the problems with the report.

Well I can either post a long list of engineering departments or you can tell me where in the US you are so I can find you some local names/numbers.

Not that I think you'll actually do anything with that info. I mean we both know that if you were at all confident in your position you'd have contacted engineers yourself by this point.

Instead you agree to call engineers only after having been challenged and even then you sit back and wait for me to find you some.

Good lord, why are all twoofers so fucking lazy?

 
At 25 March, 2007 22:21, Blogger CHF said...

If you want some specific names then let me know what region you want them from.

If you feel like doing some work yourself then you can look up some engineers at the following engineering departments:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.abdn.ac.uk/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/esbe/about/depeng.shtml
http://www.liv.ac.uk/engdept/
http://www.swan.ac.uk/engineering/
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/civileng/

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/
http://www.ce.ksu.edu/
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cee/
http://www.ce.clemson.edu/
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/
http://cee.mit.edu/
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/

I can find you plenty more if you get through those ones.

Will they agree to view my evidence? We shall see.

Ah, so you have evidence, do you? Wonderful!

If you have a slightest clue as to what you're on about then I'm sure the following publications would love to look over this "evidence."

Science magazines:

http://www.ejse.org/EdBoard.htm
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/st.html
http://www.sciam.com/
http://research.yale.edu/ysm/
http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~dgermain/index.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/

Demolition Publications

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Fire Engineering Magazine:

http://fe.pennnet.com/

Architecture Magazines:

http://www.arplus.com/home.htm
http://www.architectmagazine.com/
http://architectstore.com/magazine.html

Now's your chance to do what the rest of your pathetic little movement refuses to: show engineers what they're missing and get your evidence peer reviewed.

You've been JAQing off for far too long.

 
At 25 March, 2007 23:39, Blogger Alex said...

Liker I said, he's totally played out. I don't know why you guys bother answering him any more. It's quite clear he has no interest in actually doing anything productive.

 
At 26 March, 2007 06:39, Blogger Stevew said...

Too bad that Yamasaki is not alive. The towers were unique and the hows, whys of the collapse can only be speculation. There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts.
The original design called for the towers to take a hit from a 707 that was lost in the fog, it seems that 30 years later that opinions differ. I have seen pre 911 specs that confirm this. Perhaps because the towers seemed to be very well built that one could speculate that they could take more but a 707 lost in the fog was what they were designed for. The whole point of the unique design was to build a building that was light weight and have unobstructed floor space.

 
At 26 March, 2007 10:15, Blogger CHF said...

Liker I said, he's totally played out. I don't know why you guys bother answering him any more. It's quite clear he has no interest in actually doing anything productive.

I guess you're right, but I do enjoy calling his bluff.

Like George Mombiot wrote in the Guardian: embracing the twoof movement is just an excuse to do nothing.

Swing's been doing nothing for the better part of a year now and when he finally breaks down to the point of wanting to contact engineers he still expects me to find him some! You'd think a truth-seeker would do that part on their own.

 
At 29 March, 2007 11:13, Blogger Shannon said...

hey...some of you folks have been and continue to have your opinions manipulated....you lack the ability for objective unbiased opinions requiring an intellectual observation of physics....because your brain has been hijacked by the media machine...
the buildings fell at a rate of speed that clearly tells the story....do the math.. compute the physics..where were the huge heavy concrete pieces of the buildings...??? the concrete was pulverized.into powder....what about the molten heat signatures from satelite observatories..??
that can only be that of explosives....huh??
what about building seven?? no plane hit building seven ..yet it mysteriouly fell that afternoon......no big plane found at the scene....at the pentagon....
guess you all cannot see the obvious and have been and continue to be brainwashed...guess theres no hope for you.....unless you somehow manage to wake up....from your deep hypnotic sleep induced programming.....that especially goes for you screw loose change.....stop thinking with the head between your legs and use your brain ......

 
At 29 March, 2007 19:41, Blogger CHF said...

shannon,

everything you just posted has been explained over and over again.

Your failure to listen isn't anyone's problem but your own.

 
At 30 March, 2007 00:34, Blogger Larry R. Kaufman said...

How could anyone be so stupid as to not recognize the fact that the only was a 47 story building can fall to the ground in 6.4 seconds is by controlled demolition. It's called "free fall". The word collapse has no business being used in what occurred on 9/11. Additionally, a building 110 stories tall falling in less than 11 seconds can also only be achieved by controlled demolition. When are those of you who are sleeping from drinking the government Kool-Aid going to wake up? You'll wake up when you're being marched into the internment camps FEMA has waiting for you.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home