Interesting Read on Post 9-11 Bureaucracies

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Call it what you wish...over-reaction, nut case, conspiracy theory...it is your opinion.

Sorry if it came across as a personal attack. I agree that not all people over-reacted. However, the conspiracy theory sites seem to me to be a clear over-reaction. There have been independent articles about how needing to believe in those types of theories is part of the national psyche, possibly part of the grieving process, I don't know.

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

In the meantime, a group of individuals who seem qualified, have discovered what they claim to be physical evidence...what that evidence represents and suggests, is not for me to speculate on but to be witness to it's testing and investigation.

What I object to is the lack of logic used by many of the conspiracy theorists. They are by and large not qualified, they have not discovered physical evidence, and they have so many logical fallacies in their arguments that it is absurd. Use the example of the AIA member who put the light up. He is not a structural engineer. Neither is his cohort the reverend, or Jones (the physics professor). They don't have evidence, rather they find what they believe are inconsistencies and jump to a conclusion about what happened. They bury facts that don't fit their hypothesis. They are intellectually dishonest. There has been testing and investigation, but they don't like the answer. They have an agenda.

I think it is the responsibility of a population to subject these types of claims to critical examination, and if the theories are found lacking, to speak up. That is exactly what is happening with sites such as the two links I provided. Read the conspiracy theory, and read the rebuttals. Decide which side makes more sense. If a population can not distinguish between two opposing arguments of very different quality, then I guess we are all doomed. However, I believe that people will be able to see the contrast.

[chilliwilli]

You seem convinced in your opinions of the Architect and the Professor...if you don't mind me asking, what exactly disqualifies them?

Regarding the rebuttal, i find it odd that the site's admin doesn't reveal his identity...just an email.

Iif i'm not mistaken, they addressed the evidence/findings to the National Institute of Standards & Tech, along with FEMA. The response was that it didn't exist...then they said they didn't look for it...now i believe they're saying that they won't look for it because it would've been far too complicated of a task to execute...

Further commissioned investigations with full subpoena power is the only way, I will see a clear and finite contrast. There is currently an effort for a ballot initiative, in NY, for an independent investigation...spearheaded by some of the family members. The commission saw and heard facts that the public is not yet privy to...so if their Chair says more commissioned investigations are required, then i expect such. Perhaps this is part of my grieving process as there has yet to be a single conviction for the crime.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

You seem convinced in your opinions of the Architect and the Professor...if you don't mind me asking, what exactly disqualifies them?

They disqualified themselves. In their own words, they are not experts in the field. AE911Truth.INFO » No Expertise

Their papers do not stand up to peer review. Those papers were analyzed and discredited by their own university engineering departments, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and perhaps by the American Institute of Architects, whose logos have been entirely removed from Gage's web site.

My primary complaint is that they take one point, and then construct an entire argument around it. They don't like the wars in the middle east, and they want America to pull out. Fine, I can support those two positions. But to accomplish that aim, they go so far as to say that the US government blew up the buildings, to create an opportunity to go to war. They call this the Pearl Harbour moment. They say they found thermite (actually, they say they found chemicals that are common to thermite). So, they say that proves the buildings were blown up. They conclude that the government is the only one who could have done it. All the way from trace chemicals (which apparently are also produced by burning computers) to the idea that the government planned it. Huge leaps in logic.

Their argument is that planes could not have caused the collapse, so it must have been the government. All you have to do to challenge this argument is prove that the planes could have caused the collapse.

The government has lots to answer for, but to use gregorio's point, above, do you think that they are capable of collapsing the towers, and keeping it a secret? How many groups would have to be in on that for it to be plausible? The fire departments, the police departments, all of the investigative agencies, and so on?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Perhaps this is part of my grieving process as there has yet to be a single conviction for the crime.

Do you have a source for that statistic? I didn't know the number, so I just Googled it and read about the various convictions. They can be grouped by civilian, military, those convicted in courts outside the US, those killed in the attacks, and then there are those who have been killed by the military since.

[chilliwilli]

In my readings so far, i have yet to see the Architect make any comments/connections to the Middle East or war. You're lumping his findings with the opinions of others. Perhaps the Professor may be making this connection...that's his opinion and rightfully so, until further commissioned investigations confirms or reveal otherwise.

Regarding the nutty professor's peer reviewed articles...a quick search yields a paper good enough to make print in Scientific Journal: Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal

Originally Posted by JCL

They disqualified themselves. In their own words, they are not experts in the field...

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and are designed to withstand potentially destructive forces.

Because they say they are not experts in controlled demolition disqualifies them? Is this firefighter not qualified to asses the proper method to investigate a fire, or is he just a theorist with an agenda?

[chilliwilli]

Originally Posted by JCL

Do you have a source for that statistic?

My source for the statistic of zero conviction? How about the fact that prosecutors failed to connect Moussaoui with the others...the tragedy occurred on US soil and there has yet to be a single conviction on US soil, despite the fact that there remain alleged co-conspirators in custody on US soil, yet to be put on trial almost a decade later. As COL Wilkerson mentioned in the video interview i posted, FDR took decisive action after Pearl Harbor by firing Military brass...JFK took decisive action after Bay of Pigs and fired Dulles. Not a single person has been fired/demoted or convicted.

The decision to go to war was made quicker than the decision to hold commissioned investigations. While some in the the court of public opinion continue to convince themselves and choose sides...i prefer to await the suggestions of the Commission Chairman for further commissioned investigations of the crime. If that continues to delay, along with trials for the alleged mastermind and cohorts, then perhaps the residents attempt for a ballot vote, will yield answers.

[motordavid]

Interesting discussion here...
Dunno; I've seen WT7 vids several times, (even "live" sort of, from way back on the orig. 9-11), and I could never understand how that building just freakin collapsed as an "adjunct" to WT1 & WT2.

Back at the grassy knoll ranch, it is severely chilling to think some group of behind the curtain guys did this for some convoluted reason or rationale...the fiasco(s) in the mid east have not brought us a drop of cheaper/more oil per se, and other than lining the bulging pockets of possibly some defense contractors, Blackwater types, et al, I just don't quite get a "reason" or justification to instigate that destruction for some "gain".

Time seems to cover up a lot of stuff, like pulling your hand from a bucket of water. And, I doubt anyone or any group has the wherewithal to nail down some smoking guns or get any group of real power to get interested.

Meanwhile, I feel so "safe" with all those people, buildings, levels of bureaucracy, eavesdropping, and the current green/yellow light. Gov't @ "work". I think I'll send off a check to the Dept of Homeland Security.
Where's Tom Ridge & Cheney, when we really need them?!

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Regarding the nutty professor's peer reviewed articles...a quick search yields a paper good enough to make print in Scientific Journal: Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal

That was far too easy. That was the paper that caused the editor to quit over the peer review process not being followed. Scientific papers usually aren't published on sites with 911Truth in the url.

Read the details here:

Screw Loose Change: Bentham Editor Resigns over Steven Jones' Paper

Peer review usually means that others beyond the founders of the truther site review the paper. Good discussion of the lack of peer-reviewed papers here:

theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept - wtc7lies


I especially like this review of the paper: JREF Forum - View Single Post - JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

Because they say they are not experts in controlled demolition disqualifies them? Is this firefighter not qualified to asses the proper method to investigate a fire, or is he just a theorist with an agenda?

Not having expertise in a subject makes it easy for them to make silly mistakes and nonsensical conclusions. The 911 Truth movement was based largely on internet research. It peaked around 2005 or 2006. It appears to have largely died on the vine now, partly due to the fact that people got fed up with them, and used their own tools (internet research) against them, proving one by one that each of their conclusions was illfounded.

This link has some pretty good information if you would like to research. Mark Roberts has a very complete list of resources: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

Haven't seen the firefighter's video, but I have read the reports of the NYC Fire Department, Firehouse magazine, and so on.

I agree with you about the botched government efforts prior to the attack, and the weak prosecution after. The real conspiracy, IMO, was that the decision to go to war was all but made, and this attack provided the justification. That is not to say that the towers were brought down by the US government.

I also agree that nobody was fired afterwards, that accountability doesn't seem to exist. I think that these issues deserve debate. I just don't see the logic in creating conspiracy theories.

If we are going to go with a conspiracy theory, how about we use the one whereby lizard-like alien shape-shifters have occupied the bodies of government leaders, and they did it. That would be entertaining.

[chilliwilli]

Again...we can go back and forth posting links and counter-sources all day. The fact remains that the paper still made print in a peer reviewed Scientific Journal, regardless of the "editor quiting". Countless people have resigned their posts after backing 911 related issues or investigations...does this make the papers findings invalid or the fact that an investigation is needed, invalid? The editors decision to quit seems personal...she even states that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad. If she didn't agree to publish it, then who did?

You're right, scientific journals aren't published on 911-truth sites...a quick search yielded that site. It's just a mirror but here's the original site and download:
Bentham Science Publishers...you seem to have read all the rebuttals but have you actually read the paper itself? Have you even considered any of the co-authors and their background? Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen. Meanwhile, the rebuttalist's fail to even reveal themselves for the public to know their backgrounds. They don't even offer their own analysis of the alleged evidence, just rebuttals. Well perhaps except for Mark Roberts, since you brought him up...but who is Mark Roberts? All i've found on him is that he's an NYC Tour Guide?!

We can agree to disagree that Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Chemists, Firefighters etc...are not qualified in identifying a potential root cause of a demolition, while pushing for further Commissioned investigations. They do have something in common, which i happen to agree with, further investigation. Which seems to be their agenda, imo. They don't seem to be speculating about who nor why, just the facts of their discovery, based on their specific backgrounds. This is why i've separated them from general theorists.

I've personally given ample time to both sides...What i don't understand, is how some can completely discount people like the Architect and Professor's findings, based on other peoples rebuttals/views and not their own. Some have discounted them altogether, without Commissioned investigative results of their findings.

The links you've posted aren't new...they've been floating the net for some time. What's new is this evidence...and instead of looking further into it and awaiting official testing results, some are discounting the finders and mocking them...even when officials claim that they have not tested for it and now refuse to...why?

The fact also remains that some continue to claim negligence...however, the Commission went beyond negligence and actually recommended criminal prosecution of certain departments/agencies and individuals. It was denied...why? Thus why it's imperative for me to hold judgement until a fact-finding Commissioned investigation has taken it's rightful course.

JCL, you've obviously made up your mind in the court of public opinion. I'll continue to side with the Commission's Chairman and withhold judgement pending further investigative Commissions. I've spoken my view and will leave this topic at that.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

The fact remains that the paper still made print in a peer reviewed Scientific Journal......You're right, scientific journals aren't published on 911-truth sites...a quick search yielded that site. It's just a mirror but here's the original site and download:
Bentham Science Publishers...you seem to have read all the rebuttals but have you actually read the paper itself? Have you even considered any of the co-authors and their background? Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen.

Scientific Journal shouldn't be capitalized, the truth site is just trying to make it sound like Scientific American IMO. Bentham is a commercial publication house that publishes for a fee. Yes, I read the paper (but I did skim when it got into the details). Why did they analyze samples of dust provided by residents years after 911? There was no apparent chain of custody of any evidence. They found rust and aluminum. Is that a surprise? They conclude it was thermite, even though the chemicals they found were those expected to be in dust from a fire. The co-authors include a chemist, a lab manager in an astronomy lab, a lab manager at UL who got fired for associating the paper with UL, a computer consultant, a technical writer, a lawyer, and apparently an employee of the EPA (I only have one source for that last one, so don't consider it conclusive). What I can conclude is that none of these gentlemen are qualified to write chemistry papers, which is probably why they didn't realize that they can't hire their own peer reviewers (they have to be anonymous, selected by the editor, who quit in this case because the process was ignored. The journal turns out to be the National Enquirer of scientific journals.

What I can conclude is that the paper is not grounded in science.

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

What i don't understand, is how some can completely discount people like the Architect and Professor's findings, based on other peoples rebuttals/views and not their own. Some have discounted them altogether, without Commissioned investigative results of their findings.

I am not a structural engineer, so I can't analyze those points. I am a mechanical engineer, so I can follow the discussion. I don't think a commission is particularly useful. We have a commissioned report, but we also have a lot of reports such as NIST, the Popular Mechanics series, and hundreds of credible professional papers that agree with the conclusion that planes brought down the towers. They are all available to read online. The overwhelming evidence is that the official version is reasonable in terms of what caused the towers to collapse. That comes from professional associations of structural engineers and many similar groups, who have evaluated and dismissed Gage's position.

What do they have to gain by promoting these theories? From Gage's 911truth website:

When are we going to have a real investigation to figure out what happened on 9/11, which has led to never-ending war, torture and the use of depleted uranium, phosphorus, cluster bombs and bunker buster bombs that kill indiscriminately? Nine-11 truth ends the wars.

So the Architects and Engineers for Truth do have a mission. They believe that planes could not bring down the towers, that it was a controlled demolition by insiders, that all the victims were sacrified to get a reason to go to war, that three presidencies and administrations were involved in the coverup, and that those who support the official version are implicated in the plot. They also believe that tens of thousands of tons of thermite were used to bring down the towers, even though thermite hasn't been used to demollish a building previously. They believe that internet photos nine years after the event constitute evidence. The list goes on. My objection to them is on the basis of logic, common sense, and personal evaluation of their claims.

Originally Posted by chilliwilli

The fact also remains that some continue to claim negligence...however, the Commission went beyond negligence and actually recommended criminal prosecution of certain departments/agencies and individuals. It was denied...why? Thus why it's imperative for me to hold judgement until a fact-finding Commissioned investigation has taken it's rightful course.

That goes into the area of whether the official response was appropriate. Very fair comment. An investigation into that may result in more prosecutions, but I wouldn't count on it. I will just say that is a very different focus than considering why the towers fell.

I think that suggesting the government blew up the towers does not respect the memory of those who lost their lives. I think it is being done by attention seekers who have made a career out of it, and who want to sell more DVDs on their web sites. It is a shame. Hopefully people will read both sides and decide for themselves.