Voodoo Histories
I just ordered a bunch of books from Amazon, I am going to have to add Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch to my order. The author gives a bit of a preview to it in Salon.
What, in your opinion, is the most implausible conspiracy theory to gain wide acceptance?
I think 9/11 is the most baroque. I can’t tell you what it feels like to see videos on YouTube of David Ray Griffin addressing people about it — one of America’s leading theologians expressing with absolute certainty the existence of a conspiracy so ludicrous it takes your breath away.
Labels: David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories
posted by James B. @ 8:01 PM
127 comments
127 Comments:
A book about conspiracies,eh?
Check out this comments on the link:
"The fact is; that the world is progressing towards a New World Order. The removal of the Bible, and the God we believe inspired it, is an integral part of this progression. People who support this progression call themselves Progressive. Unfortunately it is a progression to slavery, immorality and barbarianism. At the end of the hour the subject of Lucifer, and the people who worship him as god came up, the Illuminati. Prager don't believe that Lucifer is a sentient entity."
Beyond parody.
R.I.P. Howard Zinn
Ah, Roidy, how's the rage?
Fuming?
Spitting chips?
Gnashing of teeth?
Or, you one of the 'waiting for the black helicopters/ type?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question I asked of you in a previous post.
Basically, you said the NIST report was 'drylabbed', and therefore not to be trusted.
So, I'll be more specific this time.
What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?
paul w.. yeah and in a twist of irony, you linked to a Wikipedia article that had nothing to do with "drylabbing", but the actual normal practice of computer simulation the term is probably derived from.
You looked up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lab
Instead of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drylabbing
Anyone familiar with the real social trends knows that since the early 1980s religion worldwide has been making a comeback, with the exception of Western Europe (unless you count the growing Muslim population).
Russia is now one of the most devoutly Christian countries on earth. Many of the former Warsaw Pact countries are rediscovering the religions of their ancestors. Nothing really needs to be said about Islam, its fairly obvious that they are as religious as they've ever been. Confucianism is making a come back in China and the government is actively supporting this. Anyone who thinks that the United States is losing Christianity is out of their minds. All our immigration trends will further bolster our identity as a predominately Christian country. The 1970s saw the peak of secularism and its been reversing ever since.
As far as One World Government, the trend has been towards regionalism and Globalization has suffered several setbacks.
I seriously don't get the NWO Christian eschatology types.
From wikianswers: "Dry labbing is when one claims to do research, but in reality just guessed the conclusion, or you copied the results of someone who actually did research and said they were your own. If you are dry labbing, you are cheating." So you're just accusing the NIST of just making shit up instead of doing real research and real experiments?
Making stuff up is what NISt did in the WTC7 report. They claim anonymous eyewitness testimony to fires without saying who it was or citing where it could be found.
They said fires burned on floors 7,8 and 14 since 10:28 but they could cite no actual evidence of them until 3:40, 4:00 and 5:00.
Damocles: NIST's FEA inputs don't match the visual, testimonial and physical evidence.
Sometimes NIST invented 'scenarios', where, buried in elaborate verbiage, they essentially admit ramping up the numbers by 10 to 20% for no apparent reason other than they like the results better.
Frank Greening documented many such occasions.
In some ways, I can hardly blame NIST. What did they have to work with to explain such a slippery frog as WTC 7?
From an analytical standpoint, WTC 7 was a nightmare. There is no doubt in my mind NIST's WTC 7 report is unscientific, therefore probably also false.
Mind you NIST's narrative diverges from the accounts of the firefighters. the firefighers essentially claim fire+damage induced collapse. NIST, on the other hand claims "thermal expansion" around column 79.
Essentially, using a 'tweaked' FEA, you can make pigs fly if you want to.
Making stuff up is what NISt did in the WTC7 report. They claim anonymous eyewitness testimony to fires without saying who it was or citing where it could be found.
Stop making stuff up, Brian.
They said fires burned on floors 7,8 and 14 since 10:28 but they could cite no actual evidence of them until 3:40, 4:00 and 5:00.
False.
Also, for someone who claims to not believe in the various "truth" conspiracies, Roid Rage sure is obsessed with WTC 7. Remember kids, the Bush administration blew up WTC 7 in order to make their impossibly complex plot even more likely to be exposed by crusading citizen investigators like Brian Good.
"Roid Rage said...
R.I.P. Howard Zinn"
Good riddance to another dead Marxist.
Sometimes NIST invented 'scenarios', where, buried in elaborate verbiage, they essentially admit ramping up the numbers by 10 to 20% for no apparent reason other than they like the results better.
That is not simulating something is done. Twist the parameters within the boundries of possibility to see when you reach what was observed. The same protocol would require, for instance, not to include any explosives, since the necessary events that would be present in explosive demolition were not observed, even though they would be.
It's funny, isn't it, how for example NISTs' studies always fit into what should be done, yet almost any two elements of the CT are completely incompatible.
Roid Rage,
I suppose it doesn't matter to you that Howard Zinn thought 9/11 Truthers were full of shit?
Oh! And just in case you cared, Eustace Mullins (He who authored "The Biological Jew") has snuffed it as well.
TV, no, that's called drylabbing. There is no excuse.
AngrySoba: baka
'They claim anonymous eyewitness testimony to fires without saying who it was or citing where it could be found.'
No fires in WTC7? Fuck off (39 minute in:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=b4NlS5DAMJmw-AaE0q2RDg&q=The+conspiracy+files&hl=en#
Hey JamesB,
Let us know where Aaronovitch actually analyzes the facts of 9/11, instead of his perceptions of 'conspiracists'. That paragraph should be very enlightening.
While you're at it, ask him if NIST has vetted the inputs to their simulations. You know, for those pesky, conspiratorial concepts like repeatability, falsifiability, the scientific method, etc.
Oh... never mind. Let's just wait for 'debunkers' to tell us why they're not necessary.
Spacebarpig كنت مخطئا يا صديق. نفخر نحن المسلمين لم الهجمات الإرهابية. يمكنك الحصول على قطعة من الحياة الأحمق القرف
Let us know where Aaronovitch actually analyzes the facts of 9/11, instead of his perceptions of 'conspiracists'.
Why don't you show where you or other CT morons have "analyzed the facts of 9/11." Btw, "analyzing" is not leaping to a conclusion and then inventing a scenario that leads to it (which is twoofers have done).
I think Walt's buddy is asking him if he wants to go halvsies on a piece of livestock tonight.
ConnedEmo:
"analyzing" is not leaping to a conclusion and then inventing a scenario that leads to it"
You mean like saying "Thermal expansion & buckling of column 79 caused the global collapse", without even looking at the column itself? Or maybe concocting an 'explanation' that doesn't address the observed events? That's almost as moronic as saying things like "the column failed over 8 floors" and expecting people to swoon at your porcine wisdom. I can't expect you to understand that level of nuance though, StonedEmo: you're clearly way out of your league here.
The NWO stole my Benz!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/02/charlie-sheens-suv-found-crashed-off-la-cliff/1
You pathetic fantasist debunker liars post nothing but a farrago of incoherent drivel, poor attempts at humor, and giggling pats on the back for your desperate falsehoods.
If you weren't so awe-struck by Pat and James' masturbatory self-satisfaction, you might see through their obvious lies and obfuscations. I guess I'm asking far too much, though.
Some day you'll see that the 'debunking' on this blog just keeps not coming in.
Dirt dumb debunkers post lies. Got facts? Spend all your time avoiding the science. Got physics? Got free-fall? why no resistance for so much distance? Dirt dumb debunkers have nothing but hearsay lies.
Is the pathetic one that mocks people's names one of Krazee's alter egos? Or just another truther who can't form coherent thoughts. He really sucks, he's not entertaining like petgoat.
I love acting cute while I mock the 'truthers'. They're so lovable.
: )
; )
: (
God I hate my life, and I'm terribly depressed, but you should keep it a secret. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to say JEW in this post.
OMG FREEFALL PROVES VAST GUBMINT CONSPIRACY OMG OMG OMG
you're clearly way out of your league here.
As always, the classic twoofer assertion "I'm right because I say I am." No wonder nobody takes you clowns seriously.
I don't let things like 'facts' and 'evidence' get in the way of the back-slapping idiocy that counts as 'debunking' around here. God forbid I should have to defend my twisted faith.
Signed,
ConnedEmo, Blathering Mong, PAThetic Curley, JamesBDSM, and Shart Throberts.
Take your "evidence" to court if its so strong.
"Got free-fall? why no resistance for so much distance? "
Nobody gives a flying fuck, Krazee.
Free-fall speed? Hahahahahaha!
Troofers crack me up.
Get over yourselves.
What "facts" and "evidence" do you twoofer dumbshits have? A paper published in a vanity journal by a defrocked professor that was "peer-reviewed" by other conspiracy theorists? Okay, sunny, sleep tight on that one!
Yes, NIST's analysis involved some hypotheticals, that is hardly a shocking revelation. The problem is ALL twoofer assertions are hypotheticals.
Has anyone ever tried to bring an inside-job claim to court before? That would be pretty amusing.
Yes, NIST's analysis involved some hypotheticals, that is hardly a shocking revelation
Scientific theories all begin with axioms. I don't think truthers will be satisfied until we build an exact duplicate of the WTC complex and smash jets into them.
"Yes, NIST's analysis involved some hypotheticals, that is hardly a shocking revelation. " -ConnedEmo
You're showing your pathetic, howling ignorance again. Gravitational acceleration was confirmed by NIST in writing, even after Sunder said it was IMPOSSIBLE. What "hypotheticals" did they use to explain this, StonedEmo? You're PAThetic, as always.
Heh, does anyone know what happened with the Northeast 9/11 Truth Conference? I'm guessing 8 speakers and 4 audience members.
Yours,
PAThetitirck in Dumbcityinnati
When are you going to court with your slam-dunk evidence, truther?
Or is winning arguments on blogs all you care about?
"Gravitational acceleration was confirmed by NIST in writing"
No it wasn't.
And besides, nobody cares.
"paul w.. yeah and in a twist of irony, you linked to a Wikipedia article that had nothing to do with "drylabbing", but the actual normal practice of computer simulation the term is probably derived from."
As expected, you did not answer my question: "What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?"
You sort of answered it to another poster;
"From an analytical standpoint, WTC 7 was a nightmare. There is no doubt in my mind NIST's WTC 7 report is unscientific, therefore probably also false."
Yup, the usual truther nonsense, in that you say the report was a 'nightmare', and 'unscientific', yet all you can offer as backup is a cop-out; 'in my mind.'
Translation: I have no proof to offer.
Also, the 'probably'.
Ah, the usual truther scapegoat; probably, maybe, what-if, could be, possibly...etc.
One rarely gets commitment from a truther, and you are no exception.
Fail. Again.
PS. Seek professional help.
The Arabic post was funny.
It says... something something something spacebarpig, something something something, right?
Am I the only one who recognizes the fallacy of the "truthers" argument?
For example, notice that the "truthers" categorically reject the NIST Report; however, when the NIST Report mentions "gravitational acceleration" (aka., free-fall speed) the "truthers" suddenly agree with the NIST Report. Why do the "truthers" now agree with the NIST Report, you ask? Because their goal is to attack NIST, by any means they deem necessary, with their all too predictable litany of straw man arguments and pseudo-science.
So tell us "9/11 truthers", do you agree or disagree with the NIST Report? You can't have it both ways.
translate.google.com is your friend.
(And I realize machine translations are often stilted, but that's part of the charm.)
Gravitational acceleration caused the plane to pass under the Citgo. Inside job!
"It says... something something something spacebarpig, something something something, right?"
It says:
Pick a name tool!
Perhaps you should petition Pat and James to remove the anonymous option if you feel so strongly about its use. I can understand irritation at two anonymous-es arguing with one another, but one isolated post?
NoIdentity it is!
See wasn't that easy?
That was me - just wanted to see what it felt like to be lazy.
I'm just trying to keep score here.
Teh gub'ment pulled off an attack in NYC, in broad daylight, using 767s, plus they rigged the various towers and WTC with at least 5 tons of plastic explosives, and the mysterious nanothermite. They kill all of those people in front of the world using Saudi and Egyption nationals...so they can invade Aghanistan and Iraq.
**fills out the boxes**
However, this same government has not "Disappeared" a single Troofer. At least with the JFK circus you had all of those "Mysterious Deaths". Yet not one troofer has been found dead from sucide via a shotgun blast to the back of the head.
Man, you guys are doing the whole "Conspiracy/Inside Job" thing all wrong. I suggest you guys try increasing your creds by posting online that you are being followed and then you fear for your life. Then kill yourself. It will only work if like 1500 troofers kill themselves while leaving incriminating "evidence" pointing to Bush/Rove.
That would certianly show us guys in the debunker cult.
As expected, you did not answer my question: "What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?"
You sort of answered it to another poster;
No no no. I provided you with direct links. Stop playing stupid for the sake of rhetorical theater. You know damn well what drylabbing is, and your dishonest tactics are showing.
Yup, the usual truther nonsense, in that you say the report was a 'nightmare', and 'unscientific', yet all you can offer as backup is a cop-out; 'in my mind.'
Translation: I have no proof to offer.
I made one specific allegation and I also referred to Frank Greening. You can go read his letter to NIST. As long as you afford yourself the luxury of willful ignorance, then yes, I have no proof to offer, smartass. Typical "debunker" tactics.
Also, the 'probably'.
Ah, the usual truther scapegoat; probably, maybe, what-if, could be, possibly...etc.
One rarely gets commitment from a truther, and you are no exception.
Fail. Again.
I prefer responsible and thoughtful approximations over asinine absolutisms.
How many times did you switch? Pancake theory? Column failure theory? Truss failure theory? I don't HAVE to be pigeon-holed by you and your ilk to understand that there is a problem here. What is it with this uncritical pampering of reports that are essentially continuously moving targets?
PS. Seek professional help.
Ah, the inevitable desperate questioning of sanity. Seek a brain transplant, you terminal moron.
'You pathetic fantasist 'truthers' post nothing but a farrago of incoherent drivel, poor attempts at humor, and giggling pats on the back for your desperate falsehoods.'
This needed a few amendments so that it made sense.
"Translation: I have no proof to offer.
I made one specific allegation and I also referred to Frank Greening. You can go read his letter to NIST."
Ohhhh, a letter.
I'm convinced!
BOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
"I prefer responsible and thoughtful approximations over asinine absolutisms."
Because, you know, absolutism is so.......absolute.
"PS. Seek professional help.
Ah, the inevitable desperate questioning of sanity. "
Ain't nothing "desperate" about it.
It's the absolute, objective truth.
"It's the absolute, objective truth."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
— Albert Einstein
GuitarBill said...Am I the only one who recognizes the fallacy of the "truthers" argument?
They've always picked and chose what they thought would bolster their cause, regardless of context. Spacebar dork thinks if he utters a few pseudoscientific phrases it means he knows something. They also get all bent out of shape if their crackpot assertions aren't accepted by others.
A Pakistani writer does an excellent take down of Loose Change and conspiracy theories in general.
In a talk he gave at the Galle Literary Festival recently, the famous historian Antony Beevor made an interesting point. While bemoaning the lack of historical accuracy in much of the media, he said we had entered a “post-literate phase”. By this he meant that images had superseded the printed word as the vehicle for disseminating history. Consequently, TV and movies now determine which historical narrative is believed.
Beevor gave the example of Loose Change, a documentary that has been viewed by millions on the Internet. This film has been spliced together by inter-cutting video clips from 9/11 with spurious interviews and bizarre counter-factual comments. The result is an over-arching conspiracy theory that presents the events of Sept 11, 2001 as a plot hatched by mysterious elements in the American establishment.
Often, when I have tried to debunk conspiracy theories in this space, I have been referred to Loose Change. Many readers clearly believe that this lightweight effort is the gold standard of investigative film-making. Indeed, this phenomenon shows that people will end up believing what they want to believe. Facts are cherry-picked to suit an argument. Historical accuracy is too dull for TV anchors to bother with.
Without a doubt, spacebar dork will be upset that Irfan Husain didn't address his objections to the NIST report!
"Roid Rage said...
"It's the absolute, objective truth."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
— Albert Einstein"
"You're a moron!"
-Lazarus Long
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."
-The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
"Scratch a lefty, you'll find a totalitarian."
-Kim du Toit
"Nazism was the first example of modern identity politics."
-Nick Cohen
"Guns don’t kill people - Socialist’ kill people."
-Anon
Lazarus Long, the concise encyclopedia of right wing extremist and revisionist bullshit.
"Moral relativism is the only absolute reactionary leftists know."
-me
"Fascism" was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of "capitalism."
-Tom Wolfe
"Everything in the state, nothing outside the state."
-Benito Mussolini
"Roid Rage said...
Lazarus Long, the concise encyclopedia of right wing extremist and revisionist bullshit."
The vein on your forhead is throbbing again.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
There we go, the whole coterie of LL's Orwellian revisionist parade is marched around as if it makes an iota of difference to scholarly consensus.
Of course in LL's neo nazi white supremacist ultra-nationalist circle jerk, this sort of mentally underdeveloped flapdoodle is swallowed like gospel.
Nice summary of the KKK guide to world history there, Grand Wizard Theodore. You look better with that pointy hat on, btw.
And to top it off, he closes off with a little token MLK quote.
MLK fucking despised warmongering bigots like you.
" Roid Rage said...
There we go, the whole coterie of LL's Orwellian revisionist parade is marched around as if it makes an iota of difference to scholarly consensus."
Oooooooo, concensus.
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."
-Michael Crichton
"Roid Rage said...
And to top it off, he closes off with a little token MLK quote."
Ooooo, a TOKEN. Nice try, goofball.
"MLK fucking despised warmongering bigots like you."
Stereotype much there, buckaroo?
I wonder what you REALLY think about blacks.
Oh, and Raging Bullshit?
Charges of racism are boring.
Try to come up with something new, 'mkay?
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."
That sounds like advice that the truthers can take, but don't, RR. Particularly given the propensity of your kind to venture into areas (physics, engineering, avionics, Middle Eastern history, the history of terrorism, US foreign policy, strategic studies etc) in which the deficiency of your collective knowledge becomes painfully apparent with every comment you type.
"That sounds like advice that the truthers can take, but don't, RR. Particularly given the propensity of your kind to venture into areas (physics, engineering, avionics, Middle Eastern history, the history of terrorism, US foreign policy, strategic studies etc) in which the deficiency of your collective knowledge becomes painfully apparent with every comment you type."
physics, engineering
Whoops. 1000+ architects and engineers.
We have scholars from across the board.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
Middle Eastern history, the history of terrorism, US foreign policy, strategic studies
We have people like Paul Thompson and Kevin Fenton hosting and maintaining historycommons.org, THE most comprehensive 9/11 timeline around, with an enormous collection of mainstream media reports, scholarly and government sources.
Then there is Nafeez Ahmed. From Wikipedia:
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a London-born author and political scientist specialising in interdisciplinary security studies. He teaches International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, where he recently completed Doctoral research on European imperial genocides from the 15th to the 19th centuries.
(...)
His research on international terrorism was officially used by the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC.
Avionics, as far as I'm concerned, we have none, or almost none. I don't take pilotsfor911truth all too seriously. Aerospace engineers, perhaps:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/145
Such as Dwain Deets, formerly a head engineer at Nasa. He's our Ryan Mackey.
Then we have people such as 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, so what the hell are you blathering about anyway?
Leave it up to kookloon ultra-nationalists to bend the facts around the ideology.
"Yes,the NIST involved (?!) some hypotheticals...".D'oh! One more for the cement headed Debunker Cult Hall of Fame!! By the way,what kind of closet queen uses the wacky Holden Caulfield-ish "'mkay"?!?
" Roid Rage said..."
"physics, engineering
Whoops. 1000+ architects and engineers.
We have scholars from across the board.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html"
"Music Education, MA
BA English
Finance/Economics"
Oh, here's a good one:
"Theologian, Craftsman, Musician"
Oh, holy fuck:
"Member: National Lawyers Guild; ACLU; and Amnesty International"
So you got nothing.
You got.....crapola.
Thought so.
Missed this one:
"master plumber"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
At least you'll be able to get RID of your shit.
Whoops. 1000+ architects and engineers.
We have scholars from across the board.
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
Oh Jesus did you really walk right into that trap? 1000 Architects and Engineers out of hundreds of thousands who use the NIST conclusions as the basis for their work?
You can shout ONE THOUSAND ENGINEERS all you want, they are still an irrelevant fringe. How many scientists work at the Discovery Institute pushing Intelligent Design? It doesn't matter because ID is still horseshit.
LL's quote from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics was dead on. It's not claiming that Nazi's are left wingers. It's not revisionist.
And Deets is an aeronautical engineer, not a structural one. You can throw NASA around all you want it doesnt make him right.
Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon has claimed that the government is covering up the existence of aliens and alien spacecraft that routinely visit us. As a NASA astronaut, he has a lot of credibility. I still don't believe him.
Why are you pushing controlled demolition nonsense anyways?
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
At least you'll be able to get RID of your shit."
Or...the bricks you are shitting right now, Dorothy. Did you really think I would let you get away with this, you disgusting, lying Nazi pig? Who the fuck do you think you are with your feeble dodgery =)
* Peter Adams B.S. Chemical Engineering, Economics
* Alan Aeschliman B.S., Chemistry California State University, Long Beach Analytical Chemist
* Barret Ambrose B.S. Structral Engineering Oxford Brooks University Structural Engineer
* Robert Anderson PhD Physics Retired lecturer
* Anthony Arrott PhD Simon Fraser University Professor Emeritus of Physics
* Kevin Atkinson MS Computer Science
* Mark Avellino BS Aeronautical Science Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
* JamesMarx Ayres B.S. M.E., M.S. M.E.; UCB & Purdue
* Chris Backus B.S. Mechanical Engineering
* Mark Basile B.S. Chemical Engineering Principal Research Engineer
* Henk Beintema Master Theorethical Physics
* Luis Bosch B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Environmental Health
* Chris Burnett BS Chemistry and Earth Science
* Vaclav Cadek Dipl. Ing. chemist
* Paul CAYOL Engineer Industrial Engineering
* David Chandler BS-IPS (Physics/Engineering); MA (education); MS (mathematics)
* Larry Cornell MS, BS ENV SCI/MATH Analyst
* Terri Creech Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
* steph deskins bachelors in criminal justice. masters in criminal justice.
* Jeff Driscoll MS Mechanical Engineering
* Erk Erginer M. Sc. , Ph.D. (R&D in Cast Alloys & Explosive Forming)
* Jeffrey Farrer BS Physics and Astronomy, Ph.D Materials Science and Engineering Brigham Young University Lab Manager
* Doug Greene MS Physics MS Computer Science
* Mark Griffin PhD Physics, MS Physics, BS Mathematics, AA Liberal Arts
* Jason Griffin BS Civil Engineering ASCE Project Coordinator
* Andreas Hedqvist MSc Mechanical / Aerospace Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm Principal Systems Engineer
* Magnus Ivarsson M.Sc. in Engineering Physics
* Mark Kennedy Fire Fighter - NFPA 2002 - FF Level 2
* Herbert Lebherz AA, BA, MA, PhD San Diego State University Professor of Chemistry (Emeritus)
* Frank Legge Ph.D. Chemistry
* Arthur Marion M.S. Applied Math Johns Hopkins Univ. Oper. Res. Analyst (Ret) Sec. of Army Fellowship
* Jon Menough BS, MS Chemistry; Ph.D. Civil Engineering
* Dennis Mitrzyk BS Physics, Math; MBA
* Mason Moore phd, chemistry Research Chemist
* Terry Morrone PhD Adelphi University Professor Emeritus of Physics
* Bjarni Niclasen Bsc (physics with philosophy), Msc (physics) University of Manchester
* Victor Ostanin MA Physics University of Cambridge, UK Senior Technical Officer
* Guy Razer Master of Science, Aeronautical Studies LtCol, USAF, (Ret) Veteran Fighter Pilot
* Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering Oregon Institute of Technology Mechanical Engineer
* Francis Robitaille bachelor degree mechanical engineering Sherbrooke University Aerospace configuration engineer
* Rob Steinhofer MS Mechanical Engineer University of Wisconsin Energy Engineer
* Robert Stern M.S. Applied Mathematics
* Enzo Valenzetti Ph.D. Civil Engineering Catholic University of Leuven
* Lon Waters Ph.D. Applied Mathematics formerly of Sandia National Laboratories
NoIdentity said...
Nothing special. Dodging and moving the goal posts as the 9/11 liars usually do. ID and climate issues are FAR MORE KNOWN to the public, and LESS CONTROVERSIAL. Your defense is weak and feeble, while the number of scholars who think the NIST reports are pieces of unscientific horse shit is steadily climbing. There is no escaping, no denying.
I'm laughing at you wankers for the shift shift shifting and the dodge dodge dodging. You're a bunch of miserable drumbeat marching lemmings. Please have an accident so society can do something useful with your organs.
"Robert Lynn BA Economics (Dartmouth), MA Statistics (Columbia "
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
"Buzz MacLeod none"
Whoa! I know who I want to talk to about CD.
"Graeme MacQueen Ph.D. Religious Studies"
Pray for enlightenment?
"Cole Murray Bachelor of Arts"
In what?
"omen nabil student"
THE Omen? Holy fuck!
"Rick Nichols undergrad. Philosophy '91-'96"
6 years? Holy fuck!
"MB Raddon Ph.D, Sociology"
Um.....sociology?
"Andrew Skadberg PhD"
In what?
"Joel Smith Some Colledge"
"Nate Tomlinson None"
Wow. Impressinve.
"Rowan Wolf Ph.D. sociology"
Lots of sociaoligists showing up.
What do they know about architecture?
What do they know about science, for that matter?
"John Zeroski BA"
In what?
In other wods, Raging Bullshit, this group is a fake, and a fraud.
Next.
"Who the fuck do you think you are with your feeble dodgery"
SOmeone who quite regularly hits you upside your swollen pumpkin head with a Clue-By-Four™.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
The vein in your forhead is throbbing again.
ID and climate issues are FAR MORE KNOWN to the public, and LESS CONTROVERSIAL
The point is that you can list all the educated sounding names you want. It doesn't change the fact that they are wrong and outnumbered 1,000 to one compared to the rest of the engineering and architectural community. You avoid that point because you know its true don't you?
Furthermore, what the fuck does a sociologist know about structural engineering? A theologian?
How about you list real structural engineers only? Then, go and look at the roster of registered engineers and architects that aren't part of Gage's circus and compare your list to that one.
I'm laughing at you wankers for the shift shift shifting and the dodge dodge dodging. You're a bunch of miserable drumbeat marching lemmings. Please have an accident so society can do something useful with your organs.
You really don't need to get so angry just because you've found yourself defending something so obviously untrue. No one is dodging anything. We've discredited your witnesses, I bet that pisses you off doesn't it?
You should really stick to LIHOP since its somewhat plausible and doesn't involve fake physics and theoretical substances.
Maybe you can call Edgar Mitchell and have him do a remote viewing session to figure out who was really behind 9-11, after all he's NASA and therefor 100% legitimate right?
Your defense is weak and feeble, while the number of scholars who think the NIST reports are pieces of unscientific horse shit is steadily climbing.
I think it bears repeating that what "scholars" of philosophy, sociology, theology or any other discipline that is not structural engineering or a related field have to say about the NIST report is utterly irrelevant.
But I'm sure you know that and just love the sound of "more and more scholars every day" because it makes you think that THE REVOLUTION is at hand.
It's not.
"You really don't need to get so angry just because you've found yourself defending something so obviously untrue."
But, darn, it sure is fun making him look like the fool he is.
"You really don't need to get so angry just because you've found yourself defending something so obviously untrue."
But, darn, it sure is fun making him look like the fool he is.
"SOmeone who quite regularly hits you upside your swollen pumpkin head with a Clue-By-Four™.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
The vein in your forhead is throbbing again."
Swing and a miss, chucklefuck™
The cock in your ass is throbbing again, little brownshirt errand boy. Suck the flag and lick Uncle Sam's jackboots. You know you enjoy it.
Oooh, make sure you get that post in, Dorothy. Twice will do the job. LOL.
Come now, can't we play nice?
Like I said before, I'd rather be a patriotic, America loving flag sucker thatn a treasonous, America-hating cock sucker.
I never said you were "patriotic" and "America loving".
Just to clear up a misunderstanding. I wouldn't want for misunderstandings to occur.
Please don't start a pissing contest to see whose love for America is more pure and legitimate.
"Roid Rage said...
I never said you were "patriotic" and "America loving"."
Of course you didn't.
You would know what "patriotism" is if it grew legs, snuck up on you and bit you in your shriveled little scrotum.
"Please don't start a pissing contest to see whose love for America is more pure and legitimate."
No contest.
Raging Bullshit is an unpatriotic truther.
I'm not.
I win.
Once again,, RR fails to answer my question:
"What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?"
RR: "You know damn well what drylabbing is, and your dishonest tactics are showing."
Actually, I don't. That's why I'm asking you.
It's my way of finding out if you know what the fuck you are talking about, and so far, it seems you do not.
So, I shall repeat my question, yet again:
"What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?"
Also, you said the report was a 'nightmare', and 'unscientific'.
I asked for proof, and your reply
regarding proof is 'one specific allegation', and a letter from a Frank Greening.
Hmm. An allegation ("a statement asserting something without proof") and ONE letter.
This is your 'proof' against the hundreds of experts that compiled the reports?
Oh dear.
RR; "I have no proof to offer"
Well, at least you got that right.
RR: "Typical "debunker" tactics."
You mean, asking for proof? How outrageous!
RR: "How many times did you switch? Pancake theory? Column failure theory? Truss failure theory? I don't HAVE to be pigeon-holed by you and your ilk to understand that there is a problem here."
No problem there, RR. It's called having a theory as to why the building(s) fell.
So, they put the theories to test, and found out which were correct, and which were not.
BTW, here is a comment made on another post: "Mind you NIST's narrative diverges from the accounts of the firefighters. the firefighers essentially claim fire+damage induced collapse. NIST, on the other hand claims "thermal expansion" around column 79."
If I remember correctly, from my reading of the report, the collapse of one section caused column 79 to be unsupported, and so, it fell.
All of it helped by the fire, which weakened the steel beams.
So, in my opinion, the fire fighters got it pretty close, though not exactly.
That's what testing does, RR. It puts theories to the test, and finds out what is true, and what is not.
"Seek professional help"
My point exactly. It's the same deal, RR; put yourself to the test, and see if our theories of you are true:
paranoid
mentally disturbed
socially inept
etc.
"What is it with this uncritical pampering of reports that are essentially continuously moving targets?"
Can you translate that in English, please?
PS. Seek professional help.
You're not going to defend your scholars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI
These are excellent videos, the youtube user appears to have a whole bunch of them. He must be a government dis-info agent OMG!
Roid Rage, we've already dealt with the credentials of the '1000 architects and engineers' you place your faith in.
As far as Nafeez Ahmed is concerned, he has about as much credibility as an academic 'historian' as a fellow truther, Daniele Ganser, which is to say - not very much. You're welcome to them both, and we'll keep genuine experts on the Middle East and Al Qaeda (Brynjar Lia, Rohan Gunaratna, Fouad Ajami etc) who actually know what they're talking about.
Staff Sergeant Nick LoinCloth and Sashays asserts that "Nafeez Ahmed has no credibility". Therefore,Nafeez Ahmed has no credibility!It really is that simple here at PornBoy's Lunatic Central.Of course,it's just another coincidence that Nafeez Ahmed's research has shown SackDinghy's position to be absurd,untenable and completely at odds with available facts and publicly disseminated information.Does he jack off to a Maggie Thatcher photo while he's brainstorming an Anthony Shaffer debunk?
'Staff Sergeant Nick LoinCloth and Sashays asserts that "Nafeez Ahmed has no credibility".'
Anyone who's read his bullshit about 7/7 would realise he was barking mad, and only likely to pass muster amongst fuckwits like Walt, the imaginary OIF veteran.
paulw, if you don't know what drylabbing is, and google can't teach you, you're an idiot.
Anonymous: yeah, he's playing stupid so incredibly lifelike I'm inclined to believe it.
Anyone who's read his bullshit about 7/7 would realise he was barking mad, and only likely to pass muster amongst fuckwits like Walt, the imaginary OIF veteran.
...and fuckwits like the 9/11 commission.
LOL! Like fish in a barrel.
There are cement heads,and then there are Debunker Cult cement heads,a whole other level.Soldier Sad Sack's impenetrable bunker brain takes the ribbon.In Ahmed's book on the London bombings,the well known America hater John Loftus pointed out that the mastermind of the 7/7/05 bombings,Aswat,was being sought by the British domestic services but protected by their version of the CIA.This is the same situation that obtained in the run up to 9/11 in the US.How does that happen Big Guy? How many coincidences before you start to apply the smell test?
John Loftus is an expert at pointing out shit...
On August 7, 2005, he provided the United States address of an alleged terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family, which was then subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus' words.[3][4] Fox fired Loftus after the event.[5] Loftus said "I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist," but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner.
Damn Walt - you sure do have some strange man crushes.
This guy is believable because...he writes books???
Although I bet he could explain the Nazis to that empty headed Raging Hemmoroid.
So as far as I can tell, Roid Rage doesn't believe any of the core tenets of the 9/11 "truth" movement, but he's railing against the evil gub'mit for covering it up.
This is on par with elderly people screaming about how they want the government out of their medicare.
paulw, if you don't know what drylabbing is, and google can't teach you, you're an idiot.
Haven't we been over this? "drylabbing" is a technical sounding way of saying "bullshitting" or "cheating" or "faking the studies."
Instead of saying "NIST faked the studies" or "NIST bullshitted that report" one might say "NIST drylabbed it" to trick people into thinking that you're using a legitimate technical term when you're really just accusing NIST of lying. Without any evidence to back it up of course, aside from a circus of "scholars" who might deconstruct the normative power structures of the World Trade Center and interpret the symbolism behind it.
"Debunker Cult"
Lther.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Anonymous said...
paulw, if you don't know what drylabbing is, and google can't teach you, you're an idiot.
Roid Rage said...
Anonymous: yeah, he's playing stupid so incredibly lifelike I'm inclined to believe it.
......................
Amazing, eh? RR is STILL refusing to answer my question:
"What is 'drylabbing', and so how does this make it inferior?"
It's a straightforward question, RR. What's the matter?
Don't you know?
"Amazing, eh? RR is STILL refusing to answer my question:"
It was answered with two links to Wikipedia, incurable fuckwit pea brain.
That you like to pretend you didn't see those fucking links in order to continue this useless fucking game is your prerogative, not mine.
Nevertheless, see response to NoIdentity/Marylander below, I'll be the wisest of us both and specifically state one meaning of drylabbing here, plus the link AGAIN, so we can stop this silly and transparent rhetorical faux-challenge of yours.
Marylander:"Instead of saying "NIST faked the studies" or "NIST bullshitted that report" one might say "NIST drylabbed it" to trick people into thinking that you're using a legitimate technical term when you're really just accusing NIST of lying. Without any evidence to back it up of course, aside from a circus of "scholars" who might deconstruct the normative power structures of the World Trade Center and interpret the symbolism behind it."
It sounds like you "drylabbed" your argument there, Marylander... Just kidding. :P
Drylabbing refers specifically to subverting scientific experiments with falsified or altered data, in order to achieve a predetermined or favorable outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drylabbing
Fabrication (science)
THIS IS NOT THE SAME PAGE AS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lab
The one YOU bored us with. Are we clear, you slobbering dullard?
"Drylabbing refers specifically to subverting scientific experiments with falsified or altered data, in order to achieve a predetermined or favorable outcome."
So, have you preferred charges at your local Federal prosecuter's office?
Drylabbing refers specifically to subverting scientific experiments with falsified or altered data, in order to achieve a predetermined or favorable outcome.
Sounds like "cheating" to me. Don't you hate semantic arguments?
Again I ask:how many coincidences before you start applying the smell test? What on Earth is your major malfunction numbnuts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Time to send the conspiracy liars scurrying for the exits again.
Not a single engineer anywhere in the world has found errors of science in the NIST reports. What do agenda-driven ignoramuses know that real engineers don't?
The best twoofer response to my crushing question about the total absence of dissenting voices in the worldwide structural engineering community came from the cretinous Nazi Killclown, who wrote on the David Icke forum that Iranian and North Korean engineers would not expose a conspiracy within the American government for fear of losing their jobs.
Who says that being a evil cretin precludes having a sense of humor?
09 February, 2010 20:38
"Sounds like "cheating" to me. Don't you hate semantic arguments?"
No, I hate intellectual laziness and oversimplification. For example: cheating might involve just lying about FEA results. Is that what I wanted to convey? No. I use the term applicable to the situation and the context.
'Drylabbing refers specifically to subverting scientific experiments with falsified or altered data, in order to achieve a predetermined or favorable outcome'
You truthers have been 'drylabbing' the facts since the smoke faded over the WTC towers. This is a perfect description of your fucked-up excuse for 'research'.
Anonymous said...
"Amazing, eh? RR is STILL refusing to answer my question:"
It was answered with two links to Wikipedia, incurable fuckwit pea brain.
........................
Ah, truthers, so authoritative so sure of themselves, and yet so hopelessly wrong.
It was not answered, anonymous (or whoever you are. Boris? Brian? RR?
To recap, I repeatedly asked RR to explain it to me, not indirectly through some other post, or posting a link, but for them to explain it to me.
I think I made it clear that I wanted the raging roidsters OWN interpretation of what 'drylabbing' meant, and how this affected the report.
Did I get it? No. Nothing even remotely resembling any thought of their own entered the equation.
That, ‘anonymous’, does not cut the mustard.
For example, if I say I our knowledge of quantum physics, and how it affects our lives, is built on shaky mathematics, a link to Wikipedia about how mathematicians fake their results is not an explanation of my belief, or proof that my belief is correct, or my belief has substance, or even that I know what the fuck I am talking about.
I reckon it’s obvious to the sane readers here (hint: not truthers) why RR does not answer: they do not know.
Like all truthers, RR mouths off about something, and when you ask for proof (or, even more terrifying, their own interpretation), they simply ignore it, change the subject, or post a link that achieves the same result.
This has been going on for years, it’s how they operate.
The engineers who compiled the NIST reports that they now scoff, had no such luxury.
When asked for their thoughts, they had to show proof to back it up, or at the very least, a reasonable argument.
No hiding place in that scenario, eh?
No chance of silence, or changing the subject, or links to Wikipedia (or an irrelevant YouTube video).
No, they actually had to show that they knew what they were talking about.
Unlike RR and every other truther I’ve debated (for want of a better word) over the last few years.
See, they live in a fantasy that excludes things we mere mortals have to face, like...reality.
Just as RR did with their ‘drylabbing’ comment. No personal explanation, and no reasoned argument; just evade the question.
In other words, evading reality.
Then again, why spoil a perfectly good fantasy?
paul w: what a long and boring self-aggrandizing diatribe. Unimpressive to say the least.
This sums up your logic: because I helpfully provide links to Wikipedia to bolster my point (so that you don't have to take my word for it, which is what bunktards always whine about) and alleviate your lack of understanding, that must mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Riiigght.
Subsequently, conveniently ignore how I phrased the meaning of drylabbing in my own words. Way to go, Denial-R-Us. Vaja con Idiots.
You have yet to present evidence as to how NIST "drylabbed" it's study. Come on RR, you always post convincing arguments, albeit with some vitriol. That's why I gave you your name!
Seriously though, you post arguments that make (some) sense as opposed to to Krazees ramblings or Brian Good's utter nonsense.
See Greening's comments about fires that NIST hypothesizes that weren't there...
And, from the final report on WTC 7:
"The Fire Structure Interface (FSI) was used to impose the gas temperatures from the FDS simulations on the structural components of WTC 7 to predict the evolving thermal state of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 10). The thermal analysis approach was similar to that used to simulate the fire induced thermal loads on WTC 1 and WTC 2 described in NCSTAR 1-5G. The FDS temperature data for use in the structural analysis were sampled at 30 min intervals. For each time step, a set of thermal data files was generated that specified the thermal state of the lower 16 stories of the building. Three different thermal response computations were used. Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent and Case C decreased the Case A gas temperatures by 10 percent. Given the limited visual evidence, the Investigation Team estimated, using engineering judgment, that a 10 percent change in temperatures was within the range of reasonable and realistic values for the fires in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001."
— NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 32
"The three different thermal response cases (A, B, and C) were used in the ANSYS analysis. Based on the ANSYS model results, it became apparent that the calculated fire-induced damage to connections and beams were occurring at essentially the same locations and with similar failure mechanisms, but shifted in time. (Case C failures occurred at a later time than the same failures in Case A, and Case A failures occurred at a later time than Case B failures.) As a result, only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis, since the damage occurred in the least computational time (i.e., 6 months)."
— NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 36
Note that using case B results in higher temperatures. NIST has just drylabbed a 10% gas temperature increase, for reasons of impatience. This is the minefield that is computer simulation. All kinds of guesstimations and assumptions are made, and before you know it, the data reflect the confirmation bias of the researchers.
PornBoy either forgets or never knew that dim bulb Reagan oversaw death squads and major league drug importation into the US.How much crack did Howard Zinn usher into the country?
"Roid Rage said...
paul w: what a long and boring self-aggrandizing diatribe. Unimpressive to say the least."
.......................
That may well be, but you have still not explained what is 'drylabbing', and how it makes the NIST reports suspect.
You made the claim, back it up.
"That may well be, but you have still not explained what is 'drylabbing', and how it makes the NIST reports suspect.
You made the claim, back it up."
Ah, so you did you not see me explain that in my own words and back it up above?
Strange. Have you been bumping into things lately? LOL.
No.
Where?
Pull your head far enough out of your own ass and see the light, troll.
Oh, let me guess, you didn't figure out that "Anonymous" was me? Hmm? Nitpick much? Fucking loser.
Aw, just fucking with your head, RR.
I knew where it was.
So, to recap, your 'proof' that the NIST report(s) are bogus is, and let's make this clear, the letter from Greening...the ONE letter from Greening....from, was it 2005?...and which, to date, has got exactly zero support from engineers around the world?
Not to mention, nothing whatsoever from the lawyers of the victims families?
Lawyers, RR.
So, you're trying to convince me, that LAWYERS know of this report, which apparently shows the NIST reports not only to be wrong, but falsified, and may even point to some form of government foreknowledge of the attacks, and a high level of government knowledge at that...but they 'aint gonna take it up?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Exactly right,Howard Zinn brought exactly NO tons of cocaine into the US.As opposed to Ronald Reagan,who brought in thousands and thousands of tons of the stuff,via the noble CIA.To the insane Debunker Cult it's merely another pesky coincidence that the price of cocaine plummeted and a devastating crack epidemic and coke frenzy swept the US right around then.And Poppy was "out of the loop",right PornBoy?
Evidence would be nice, Walt.
Post a Comment
<< Home