• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

WTC Demolition Conspiracy

Was the WTC disaster an inside job?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Ok, again really slowly.
First of all I don't think that just because you have a qualification you are an expert. However that was not what I said. I was just amazed that there were "trustworthy" people [in brackets for a reason but meaning trustworthy as in They-can-sign-official-documents] having an opinion. So what would have happen if 75 amateur deconstruction nerds without any degrees would have joined up?
I'll tell you.
It would have been said that they can't be trusted because they are not "actually" working in the deconstruction business but are just very very interested [and even though they might know an awful lot, this would be dismissed straight away].
Why?
Because they'd be too "common". No credibility.

Now to up the stakes, we have 75 academics of various fields. Still "normal people" but with an added "extra" which should make them that little bit more trustworthy.
Why?
Because if they are really professors or lecturers etc and come forward with something this important, their job and credibilities would be at stake if it turns out they were wrong. Regardless if they work in maths or social studies or African mythology.

However that is unfortunately not enough [and I agree to a certain extent]. What would be the bees knees would be 75 Phd demolition experts, who have been working in the field for more than 20 years [noty that you'd get that many]. What if they say something was wrong?
Would that be the breakthrough?

But wait. There is still the official version which seems to be the holy Grail, where [because it is official] nothing at all ever could be either omitted, fabricated or misjudged. Impossible because of the sheer "officiality" of the documents. I bow to you splendidly...

Well there were quite a few mixed experts that had something to say about the whole thing. Unfortunately they never got together and called themselves something catchy. Their opinions and statements are like water on a hot stone, one drop and...pffff its gone because its only one person who said something.

Then some websites actually manage to get a few of those opinions together, which makes for interesting reading. It does, but here we go round the bent again, regardless of what these people [Firemen, deconstruction workers, caretakers etc] are saying they are just not good enough. Are they?
They are not good enough. Because they are ONLY firemen, caretakers etc.

Here we come full circle. Now 75 credible [as by law, not opinion] people get together, facing ridicule and maybe joblosses. People who not because of their titles but of the work behind achieving such a title plus the fact that they are usually well read by the nature of their profession come forward and deem it important enough to go public.
However their opinion is not worth a iota. Nil, tinfoil hat mad the lot of them, none has any credibility whatsoever. Weirdoes and totally unreliable those people are. Tss what did they think when they grouped together, that anyone would listen to them?
They are probably even less reliable than the caretakers, considering they have a degree...never trust anyone with a degree, they are all just dimwits, pretending to be lecturers and professors when in reality they couldn't add two and two. ;)


Rant over. :roll:
 
Jerry_B said:
techybloke666 said:
some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.
Click to expand...

Well, no reference has been made on the relevant websites that explain where their specialisations and experience base lie, especially WRT to any aspects of 9/11. One would've thought that this would be the best thing to do in order to qualify their opinions in some way. Until that's made clear, we can't just assume that they're at all qulaified to comment on the matter in a professional or academic capacity, simply because they have some sort of academic qualification.
Click to expand...

But there is no qualification or specialisation that could account for the unique series of incidents which make up the horror of 9/11. We have discussed these elements at length and it would appear no one person is qualified enough to answer the queries on security lapses that allowed the planes to get through, meltings points of steel, the collapsing of the towers at almost freefall speed, a building collapsing in the same manner even though it wasn't hit, the reports of explosions, the seismic spikes etc.

To ask for someone be an expert in what seems to be a unique case with as many varied features as this is asking an awful lot.
 
While I'm at it - Rynner, if you happen to be around, could you tell me how basic the knowledge of properties of materials, pressure, stress, inertia, impact, velocity, heat weight etc are to physics?

I seem to recall they teach school kids this in physics classes.

This may not be specialist knowledge - and if it is not, then every professor of physics and any type of engineer would be required to know these basic things that would be in the realm of school classroom physics.

So what I'm wondering now is, if any of these academics know their school classroom physics and if, as an added bonus they also happen to have (amongst their clique) a bunch of professors in physics and engineering etc, then they would have the in depth knowledge of physics required to do their jobs, wouldn't they?

Also, as Dingo quite rightly pointed out - they have now put their reputations and careers on the line.

Everything that they had to work so hard to obtain, years of work - now on the line.

Is that really so easy to dismiss?
 
Dingo667 said:
Here we come full circle. Now 75 credible [as by law, not opinion] people get together, facing ridicule and maybe joblosses.
Click to expand...

Personally I would not treat their opinions with the cynicism some skeptics might wish to but 75 individuals does not exhaust the pool of credible people whose opinions might be relevant to the subject - not by the tiniest percentage. By definition there are a huge number of equally credible individuals who either do not agree with the opinions of these 75 or are not convinced enough of their argument to sign up to the pledge.

The problem is that every time an individual attacks someone for questioning these academics they are in effect as guilty as the person targeted because, by default, they are questioning those equally qualified academics etc who do not concur. So it is in certain circumstances possible to see all that huffing and puffing about how certain posters dare question those more qualified than themselves as complete hypocrisy - especially if it were to come from persons who have written off a certain publication (written by highly qualified individuals) as a conduit for the "official version". (The latter statement is NOT a poke at Dingo667 by the way).
 
jimv1 said:
To ask for someone be an expert in what seems to be a unique case with as many varied features as this is asking an awful lot.
Click to expand...

But IMHO if you're going to try and round up experts to find fault with the official line, you should at least get ones that know enough the various aspects and then pool their knowledge base. The academics we've been discussing thus far don't seem to fall into any useful specialities that would help in this sort of process. So perhaps what's needed is a push to find enough professionals with enough relevant qulaifications and experience and see what they come up with.
 
Dingo667 said:
Here we come full circle. Now 75 credible [as by law, not opinion] people get together, facing ridicule and maybe joblosses. People who not because of their titles but of the work behind achieving such a title plus the fact that they are usually well read by the nature of their profession come forward and deem it important enough to go public.
However their opinion is not worth a iota. Nil, tinfoil hat mad the lot of them, none has any credibility whatsoever. Weirdoes and totally unreliable those people are. Tss what did they think when they grouped together, that anyone would listen to them?
They are probably even less reliable than the caretakers, considering they have a degree...never trust anyone with a degree, they are all just dimwits, pretending to be lecturers and professors when in reality they couldn't add two and two.
Click to expand...

Hmm - you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick. I don't think anyone here who questions the usefulness of the 75 is saying anything like 'tinfoil hat mad the lot of them', 'weirdoes', 'dimwits' etc.. I don't see the point of attempting to say that rubbishing of that type has gone on - it may say more about how you in particular read responses, more than anything else.

As to whether their jobs are on the line - have any of them lost their jobs because of their backing of this particular cause? Are their reputations now so sullied that none of them are allowed to publish in peer journals, etc.? Have any of them been told that their services are no longer required because of what they've said about 9/11?

The fact of the matter is, unless any of them are qualified in specfic areas relevant to 9/11, all we have is the opinions of 75 academics (of various disciplines). As such, those opinions may not be any more or less informed than anyone elses.
 
I saw a headline y/day saying Prof Steve Jones has been suspended by BYU, if I'm brutally honest his credibility as a witness is damaged somewhat in my view because of his religious beliefs.
However no matter their religious beliefs I would still employ a professional in their field believing that being a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever doesn't cloud their professional judgement, so it's a tricky one. :D
 
coldelephant said:
Good point.

I would like to see a list (can't be bothered Googling just now) of all these academics, then I will highlight anyone who is supposed to be in engineering or physics etc.
Click to expand...

posted earlier on in the thread

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

the fact is that they identify themselves as scholars which, i'd argue, is intended to give an impression of intellectual superiority. the reality is that the majority have qualifications not directly relevant to the required expertise neccessary to deconstruct the events of 9/11 and in most cases have no greater legitimacy than any user on this forum in possession of university qualifications. unless we insist our posts now come complete with educational achievements, relevant to the thread or otherwise, and create a two tier system of opinion then i can't see why the opinions of this group should be given any more validity than charlie sheen's.
 
Just for the record and in my opinion, (remember that word I'll be using it later), we are talking here about opinions (told you I would).

There is no definitive absolute answer as what caused the WTC buildings to collapse, there was no black box in each building to provide us with an exact answer, therefore all we have left are an extrapolation of the facts to produce a working theory based on those facts to explain the outcome. In other words a very well informed opinion, based upon those facts and upon the specific pooled knowledge and experience of the people who came up with the theory. In the common parlance, an educated guess, albeit an extremely well educated (by which I mean in the disciplines specific to the the incident in hand) and informed guess.

The 'official' version strikes me as the most logical and likely explanation for the collapse (though the conspirital idea that there were inherent flaws in the structure caused by dodgy workmanship is intriguing), not because it is 'official' but because it is the most likely, in my opinion (there it is again).

So then we come to the other seekers after truth, they too have an opinion, an opinion that may or may not be a result of specific competencies, but doesn't appear to be drawn from experience in their own fields. Thus whilst their opinion could be argued to be as valid as the official version from the point of view of their academic backgrounds, the opinion doesn't spring from direct experience of the specific circumstances we are discussing here. It is as valid then as the opinion of any educated person who has read the evidence, but most certainly not more than anyone else with a degree.

I have a number of opinions in a great number of fields, mostly totally unrelated to my academic or vocational arena, those opinions may or may not be valid but I would be the first to concede that they do not hold as much weight as someone who expresses an opinion who works in that field vocationally or within the academic arena specifically. To sum up then, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
As to whether their jobs are on the line - have any of them lost their jobs because of their backing of this particular cause? Are their reputations now so sullied that none of them are allowed to publish in peer journals, etc.? Have any of them been told that their services are no longer required because of what they've said about 9/11?

.
Click to expand...


Good point Jerry - in the DU thread in this forum there was mention of an alleged expert in DU who may have gotten sacked by the Department of Defence due to his difference of opinion with the Department.


Jerry_B said:
But if his views do not reflect those of his employers, it's not surprising that they dismissed him. It's nothing in terms of being anything conspiratorial.
Click to expand...

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... &start=405
 
coldelephant said:
Good point Jerry - in the DU thread in this forum there was mention of an alleged expert in DU who may have gotten sacked by the Department of Defence due to his difference of opinion with the Department.
Click to expand...

'May' have gotten sacked - yes. That's still very much open to question, as has been discussed in that thread. It's not actually clear that he was indeed sacked for his views, and it seems that thus far none of the 75 academics have suffered from any vocation/professional for voicing their opinions. It seems to me that saying that they're laying their jobs, etc. on the line is an effort to garner their opinions with some sort of factual basis.
 
From Scholars for 911 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth members are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, then...

These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

...and then this.

Founded by professors Jim Fetzer and Steven Jones, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may".
Click to expand...

Am i the only one that thinks this group has an agenda?... whatever that may be :roll:. And 'letting the chips fall where they may' is about as far from their actual remit as is humanly possible?
 
Of course they have an agenda - they're advocates of the demolition theory, after all ;)

Whether any of them are at all qualified WRT 'applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence' is another matter entirely. Sure, some of them could possibly be able apply scientific principles, but unless they have particular qualifications to do so in any depth, their ideas won't get very far.
 
You could ask them about their qualifications if you're in any doubt. they are contactable on their site.
 
Why would 75 scholars with degrees in unrelated fields (theology, philosophy, etc.) be considered more credible than the hundreds of experts on the other side, all in related fields such as structural engineering and demolitions (the NIST report consulted dozens of them, the Popular Mechanics article more than a few)? And the ones who have submitted actual papers to scientific journals on the subject?

And what about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of experts in those fields who have remained silent in the face of what the conspiracy theorists say is obvious evidence of mass murder? Evidence so obvious even an untrained person can see it?

This essay somewhat humorously goes into what a gargantuan undertaking the coverup would have been (estimated cost: $5,000,000,000,000). It's laughable when you look at it from that perspective. Warning: there is some crude language in that article.
 
beefstk said:
Why would 75 scholars with degrees in unrelated fields (theology, philosophy, etc.) be considered more credible than the hundreds of experts on the other side, all in related fields such as structural engineering and demolitions (the NIST report consulted dozens of them, the Popular Mechanics article more than a few)? And the ones who have submitted actual papers to scientific journals on the subject?
Click to expand...

I agree Beef.

They also have one emormous disadvantage over the official version which IMHO compromises their quest leaving it virtually pointless. It leaves them in the same position, albeit with qualifications ;), as every other person on this planet.

If we assume, and it's by no means proven, that they have the required experience and knowledge what are they going to investigate? They can of course investigate and re-evaluate the evidence used for the 911 Commission Report but that's already been done, thoroughly. Besides, I can't see anywhere where they are calling into question any evidence or analysis that was used to support the 911 Commissions findings.

Instead, they seem to be focussing on proving rediculous suppositions based on not much more than hearsay. If I was a 'Scholar' I would run a million miles from any association with a group who has no more validity than the local Scout troop.
 
Well ok - the 'Scholars for Truth' do seem to be a group of rather overenthusiastic so and so's who may just be attention grabbing or even eccentric.

All 75 of them. Less than a cult and more than a gaggle I suppose.

Maybe they are a cult in their early stages?

Thing I was saying about these folks was that if these folks know enough about heat, properties of materials, stress, pressure, inertia, impact, explosives etc, then they would be qualified to speak about it.

The reply I'm getting so far is that no they don't unless they are experts in structural or civil engineering, and that every other structural or civil engineer or demolition expert says nothing or supports the official explanation.

The fact that not many engineers or demolition experts have gone against the official explanation in any way is not an indicator for me because it raises too many possibilities.

Maybe they have something better to do with their time? Maybe they are not attention seeking? Maybe they don't need to try to start a cult? Maybe they are a different kind of sheep and do not want to stand out?

I mean, you can see the 'fury' (according to Daily Mail article posted here) and derision the 'Scholars for Truth' have attracted?

For me the official explanation is the most probable one as well - but it remains probable and as has been pointed out is not concrete, therefore it may be proven wrong in the future.

In principle this would only be likely to happen if structural or civil engineers or demolition experts came across something that convinced them to change their minds.

This I regard as being unlikely.

I don't see the harm however, in seeing what evidence these 'kooks' have cooked up and dismissing it out of hand initially, then looking at it in more detail later and considering it a bit.

That is if they are willing to show the evidence upon request.

;)
 
beefstk said:
This essay somewhat humorously goes into what a gargantuan undertaking the coverup would have been (estimated cost: $5,000,000,000,000). It's laughable when you look at it from that perspective. Warning: there is some crude language in that article.
Click to expand...

Best overview of the conspiricy and the conspiricy mindset I've read in a long time. :p

Lots of other good stuff on the site too.
 
Hmmm, wasn't as funny [the whole website] as I thought it might be.
And as to the Avery movie...erm this bloke picks the worst compilation that is about and shreds it to pieces. I would have done the same because that movie is quite bad [and I am a CT]. However there are some websites out there that show a lot of background work and completely different reasons as to the why's and who's. Also he feels that because he can't even begin to think of the beaten track that he can take the piss and call CTs almost retards. If anything he is just the opposite end of the stick. What I'd really like to see is someone that is neither - nor inclined and maybe lists obvious findings from both sides. Rather than some stuck up his own arse unfunny-man.

HA.
;)
 
Hmmm, wasn't as funny [the whole website] as I thought it might be.
And as to the Avery movie...erm this bloke picks the worst compilation that is about and shreds it to pieces. I would have done the same because that movie is quite bad [and I am a CT]. However there are some websites out there that show a lot of background work and completely different reasons as to the why's and who's. Also he [the bloke with the website] feels that because he can't even begin to think of the beaten track that he can take the piss and call CTs almost retards. If anything he is just the opposite end of the stick. What I'd really like to see is someone that is neither - nor inclined and maybe lists obvious findings from both sides. Rather than some stuck up his own arse unfunny-man.

HA.
;)
 
But then again it does specifically focus on Loose Change...
 
In May 2002, after spending three months doing construction work on Vines, I had a half hour conversation with James Gandolfini at the opening party. To make a long, drawn out conversation short, James told me, "If you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world."

It was that month that I began writing "Loose Change," a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that September 11th was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government.

Upon researching for the movie, it became apparant that the subject matter may not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today; a documentary.

In May 2004, I moved down to Washington, DC, at the time when "Loose Change" was beginning to take shape. Bouncing from couch to couch, technically homeless, eventually landing a job and an apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland, the entire time I worked on the documentary with every spare moment and dollar to his name.

In January 2005, DJ Skooly moved into my apartment fresh out of Los Angeles, and donated a rich soundtrack and recording equipment which is responsible for "Loose Change"'s unique presentation.

In April 2005, after a financial boost from Phil Jayhan of Letsroll911.org, a 1,000 DVD pressing of the original Loose Change was released on the internet, mostly on a whim.

Approximately 200 pre-orders, from the course of the past two months, were hand-addressed and packaged by my girlfriend Jessica and I. Orders started to come in at anywhere from 1 to 5 a day, something which at the time was alarming in its own right.

Eventually, word spread, and the movie started collecting a grassroots fanbase. Whenever he wasn't waiting tables at Red Lobster, me and Jessica were in the living room, addressing and stuffing envelopes, one by one. The people at the post office became curious as Jess and I put stamps on hundreds of individual orders at once, creating an assembly line inside the Post Office.

In June 2005, my best friend Korey departed from the United States Armed Forces to come support the cause, and by July 2005, after a trip to California to visit KPFK 90.7 FM and Sofia Shafquat, it was apparant that Loose Change had taken on a life of its own.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Loose Change and Loose Change 2nd Edition were edited on a $1500 Compaq Presario Laptop, using Adobe Premiere Pro 7.0 and After Effects 6.5 (2nd Edition).

The original Loose Change, including the laptop, footage, and other expenses, cost only $2000 to make, and its success is responsible for putting us where they are today.


Korey Rowe, 22 (e-mail)
Owner, Executive Producer

"Born and raised for the first 18 years of my life, in Oneonta NY. During that time I attended Greater Plains Elementary, Oneonta Middle School, and Oneonta High School. I was a normal kid, played sports, took vacations, worked for my father on the weekends.

At 18 for no apparent reason I joined the Army. I guess for a way out of my home town. Joined and not even six months later I found my self in a fox hole in Kandahar, Afghanistan (January 14th, 2002 - July 15th, 2002). Served six months there before returning stateside for a hellish 7 month full out training cycle before being shipped back across the Atlantic to Kuwait were we staged for a nice long year in Iraq (February 28th, 2003 - January 16th, 2004).

I am out of the Army now, and have dove straight into the production of Dylan's documentary Loose Change. Due to government obligations that I did not support in the first place, I was unable to dedicate as much of my time as I would have liked to.

As for the future, Loose Change has become an international phenomenon, and I will do everything in my power to have this film reach as mnay people as possible.



Jason Bermas, 26 (E-mail)
Producer, Activist, Webmaster

A Graphic Designer located in Upstate New York , I have been independently researching 9/11 for over three and a half years. After realizing that something was very wrong I began showing people the video and photographic evidence that contradicted the official version of events.

Through a mutual friend I was introduced to Dylan and Korey, and the rest has been history. I was lucky enough to help out on the second edition of the most well produced and concise 9/11 documentary out there, and for that I am eternally grateful. I continue to gather as much evidence about false flag terror as possible in hopes that thr truth will one day see the light of day.

My goals in this situation are simple, FIGHT this WAR through PEACEFUL INFORMATION until those truly responsible are tried for their CRIMES. This fight will go on until the RESTORATION of the CONSTITUTION and BILL of RIGHTS is complete!
Click to expand...

http://www.loosechange911.com/company.htm#dylan

I get the impression he started out with an idea and it moved into something more important to them all.

The last paragraph seems fair enough to me.

Don't get me wrong Loose change is over the top and does not help other CT's that have a more sensible view of what happened get their point across to the less open minded out there.

But I do think they were passionate about their story.


IMHO
1. a plane did hit the Pentagon , I think the NIST report is flawed mind.
2. two planes hit the towers and their poor construction was their down fall with respect to fire
3. The act was carried out by some Hijackers , I still don't think we know exactly all the names but its close enough.
4. Some of the US government new about the plan and used it as an excuse to attack Iraq etc. to gain control over OIL and further their goal of a US Empire.

My views only no proof needed ;)
 
yeah...right.
But I still find it amazing that the best security system the Pentagon had at the time was the camera on the Gas Station across the street.
 
Jerry_B said:
But then again it does specifically focus on Loose Change...
Click to expand...


Seems like he is ranting a lot, not really objective by the look of it.
 
coldelephant said:
Seems like he is ranting a lot, not really objective by the look of it.
Click to expand...

It's a humour website, so perhaps you should see it as heckling rather than ranting ;)
 
jimv1 said:
But I still find it amazing that the best security system the Pentagon had at the time was the camera on the Gas Station across the street.
Click to expand...

And so how do you actually know that this is the case? And does this also mean that you believe that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top