Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Cliff Varnell]

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

[Mark Stapleton]

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

[Len Colby]

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

It will take me some time to check them all but several people on the list aren't structural engineers, some are but have no experience with buildings more than 2 - 3 stories tall. One only earned a provisional license and apparently ran a hi-fi store in Provo Utah.

[Paul Rigby]

In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"The batsman's Holding, the bowler's Willey..."

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

Light refreshment, anyone?

[Cliff Varnell]

Light refreshment, anyone?

Len will have his usual: Kool Aid.

[Evan Burton]

I'm interested to see what Len has to say, because it has been proven in the past that many of the engineering experts proclaiming siding with the 9/11 CT side have actually not been experts at all.

Even if all 14 persons are qualified to speak authoritative on the matter, I would like to see more from them on their specific objections. There have been calls of "I support Dr Jones", which are quite fair - but they must also accept that the vast majority of their peers not only do not agree with them, but they reject the analysis of Dr Jones.

If for no other reason than to put this matter to rest, I would support a review of the circumstances by a panel of qualified personnel, all of which have been approved / endorsed by a body of professional engineers.

[Len Colby]

David, as you know, the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.

[…]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=137774

No comment.

Out of context by you again - a response directly to David, not you, in response to his comments about Atta's religious beliefs.

First you claimed that you never made the statement I ascribed to you. You claimed I had used “bogus quotation marks” and had not “accurately quote[d]” you. All that of course was incorrect. But now without even acknowledging your error you claim that I quoted you “out of context” but that is inaccurate as well. Yes you said that “in response to his comments” but there was no indication your blanket statement only referred to “Atta's religious beliefs”. The report however didn’t dedicate a page to that subject, there was a short bio (about a page long) up to and concentrating on his years in Hamburg but only a few sentences were about his “religious beliefs”, his increasing radicalization was addressed there and in a later section.

Not surprising of you not to address the quotation contained in my last post nor acknowledge it when it was presented to you.

I didn’t address it at the time because the question at hand (in my mind at least) was whether or nor I had accurately quoted you.

Your statement that “the whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page” was also marked by your characteristic inaccuracy. His turn toward radical Islam was mentioned in his bio, the sections “Forming a Cell” and “Going to Afghanistan” go from the bottom of pg 163 to the middle of pg 167 i.e. about 3 ½ pages and there’s probably a page of additional info in the footnotes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/911Report.htm#n722r

Your comment that it “is documented by uncorroborated hearsay.” Is wrong as well. It was based on:

• the statements of a few people, mostly members of Atta’s cell/his roomates recounting events they had (presumably) witnessed
  
• German and American government reports that you (presumably) don’t have access to and thus (presumably) have no idea what was contained there with in.
  
• An intercepted phone call and captured documents, computer disks and a videotape.
  

There is very little that qualifies as hearsay. What sort of documentary material did you expect concerning the activities of a short lived secretive proto-terrorist cell with perhaps a dozen or so members (the report named 8 but indicated there were others) especially the four “core members” three of who were dead? The minutes of their meetings?

Did you actually read the report or were your comments based on Griffen or someone else of his ilk?

Your LHO analogy is a poor one. The WCR was based on the theory (questionable as that might be) that he was solely responsible for the assassination hus it made sense to delve into his past in depth. They did spend more time on OBL, KSM and other top AQ commanders who were the ones for conceiving and planning 9/11 which would have happened (or tempted at least) Atta or no Atta. Another obvious major difference is that LHO grew up in the USA making it a lot easier to investigate his background.

“…a response directly to David, not you…”

How is whom you address your response to relevant? Should I “speak only when spoken to”? Does the same rule apply to other forum members? Does it apply to Mike Hogan?

Can your game get any weaker?

Rhetorical as it may have been a question better directed by me to you, care to respond?

Bumped for Hogan

[Evan Burton]

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

[Richard Welser]

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

[Len Colby]

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

I don't know how else you expect Evan to respond since Peter keeps posting the same links and variations of the same spiel ad nauseum, odd that you don't chide him (Peter) for his lack of 'substance'. My experience is that when the facts are presented the truthers on this forum (with a few exceptions like Ron and Maggie) resort to insults, spamming or simply disappear.

[Len Colby]

The canard that 'less than half' of this or that group of professionals have not to your satisfaction stood up and spoken against the current fiction of historical mythology is, just that, a canard. Ever heard of fear of loosing their jobs? Despite that a majority of Americans and even more non-Americans question the fiction as presented by the US Government.

The problem is that when you crunch numbers you get some minuscule fraction of a percent of "this or that group of professionals" supports the claims of the truthers I believe at last count about 20 of the 100,000 or so licensed civil engineers has done so. Most of them have areas of expertise in things life irrigation etc. I don't know of any licensed structural engineers with experience related to buildings more than 3 stories tall who question the NIST report's conclusion that the towers collapsed due to the impact of the airliner impacts alone. A conclusion accepted by Leslie Robertson the lead structural engineer of the WTC whose wife worked on the earlier ASCE/FEMA Report and by Hyman Brown the construction manager for the complex and accepted by engineering professors from MIT, Northwestern, UC Berkley etc. But hey what do they know, the opinions of a handful of ship hull, oil rig and high school gym structural engineers is more authoritative!

Fear of getting fired doesn't adequately explain the dearth of engineers who support the truthers claims, many are retired, others are tenured professors, some presumably would risk their jobs to tell the truth and AFAIK none of the engineers who've come forward have lost their jobs.

EDIT Typos see post 20.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Len Colby

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

The canard that 'less than half' of this or that group of professionals have not to your satisfaction stood up and spoken against the current fiction of historical mythology is, just that, a canard. Ever heard of fear of loosing their jobs? Despite that a majority of Americans and even more non-Americans question the fiction as presented by the US Government.

The problem is that when you chrunch numbers you get some minisculefration of a percent of "this or that group of professionals" supports the claims of the truthers I believe at last count about 20 of the 100,000 or so licensed structural engineers has done so. Most of them have areas of expertise in things life irrigation etc. I don't know of any licensed structural engineers with exerience related to buildings more than 3 stories tall who question the NIST report's conclusion that the towers collapsed due to the impact of the airliner impacts alone. A conclusion accepted by Leslie Robertson the lead structural engineer of the WTC whose wife worked on the earlier ASCE/FEMA Report and by Hyman Brown the construction manager for the complex and accepted by engineering professors from MIT, Northwestern, UC Berkley etc. But hey what do they know, the opinions of a handful of ship hull, oil rig and high school gym structural engineers is more authoritative!

Fear of getting fired doesn't adequately explain the dearth of engineers who support the truthers claims, many are retired, others are tenured professors, some presumably would risk their jobs to tell the truth and AFAIK none of the enginers who've come forward have lost their jobs.

---------

Typical of Len.

Always specific with facts!

Never makes to much of a phrase or isolated instance!

Never willing to overgeneralize.!

Always sceptical of the government that forgot the Maine, Tonkin Gulf and WMD!

Never stooping to glib dismissal!

LOL

Is this and "Ad hom?" Go back and read his last post again.

[Evan Burton]

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

Richard,

I already made my reply - the opinions are very much against the mainstream, not supported by their peers. Even so, I would support a thorough reinvestigation by QUALIFED individuals and undergoing some type of peer review process. Peter finds this objectionable in some way, and so from long experience I know it is simply better to ignore his rants.

[Evan Burton]

Borg blah blah blah Borg blah Borg blah blah.

Yes Peter.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Borg blah blah blah Borg blah Borg blah blah.

Yes Peter.

---------------

Moderator Moderate Thy Self!