Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

bump

[Ron Ecker]

I agree that a limited hangout is probably wishful thinking, and Bush is just being his usual stupid self. This is a further indication that if there was government complicity in 9/11, Bush was out of the loop. You don't trust idiots in such a plot.

As for "heat," I have noticed an increasing number of establishment columnists attacking the 9/11 truth movement, with particular emphasis on controlled demolition of the WTC. Some of it is so shrill and ad hominem that one senses desperation. (One attacks Professor Jones by pointing out that Jones believes that Jesus visited the Americas. What a wacko, right? I believe that this is orthodox Mormon belief, and Jones is a Mormon. In any case attacking a leader of the truth movement over his religion is really relevant to 9/11.) So regardless of what polls say, or the fact that no civil engineers or architects are willing to risk their jobs and careers by speaking out in agreement with Jones and others (as you may know, Jones has been put on leave by the bastion of academic freedom that employs him), there is obvious worry in the establishment.

[Evan Burton]

So regardless of what polls say, or the fact that no civil engineers or architects are willing to risk their jobs and careers by speaking out in agreement with Jones and others (as you may know, Jones has been put on leave by the bastion of academic freedom that employs him), there is obvious worry in the establishment.

I disagree!

Contrary to "..speaking out in agreement with Jones and others..." they have actually gone out to say he is wrong.

PASADENA, Calif. — Experts who consulted on the PBS program "Nova: Building at Ground Zero" openly scoffed at theories such as those presented by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, which accuse unnamed government agencies of complicity in the destruction of the World Trade Center. (Jones has been placed on paid leave by the university).

Jones insists bombs placed in the towers caused them to collapse, not the planes that hit them. But William Connolly, the director of codes and standards for the state of New Jersey — one of the nation's leading advocates for changing building codes in the wake of the terrorist attacks— insisted such theories are "ridiculous" in response to a question from the Deseret Morning News.

"Number one, why would you bother with the planes if you could bring down the buildings with bombs?" he said. "Second, that whole theory is just utterly inconsistent with the evidence.

"This happened in plain view. The National Institute of Standards and Technology had very detailed pictures analyzing it in a very detailed way. We know exactly what happened and exactly why they fell, and it has nothing to do with bombs."

Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center, echoed those comments. "It's utterly ridiculous," he said.

Larry Klein, who produced both "Building on Ground Zero" (which repeats Sunday at 2 p.m. on Ch. 7) and the Emmy-winning 2002 documentary "Why the Towers Fell," said, "It's always been interesting to me why people need to have those kinds of theories on events like this."

The program includes a minute-by-minute re-creation of what happened to the towers after the planes hit, using data from the National Institute of Standards.

"So I guess I feel that if you see the film, you can't have those theories anymore," Klein said. "But at the same time, I know that those kinds of people — you can't dissuade them."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199939,00.html

[Ron Ecker]

Contrary to "..speaking out in agreement with Jones and others..." they have actually gone out to say he is wrong.

Of course those who speak out say he's wrong. The ones who think he is right don't speak out. That's the whole point.

"Number one, why would you bother with the planes if you could bring down the buildings with bombs?" he said.

I wonder how anyone can quote that as an intelligent question. The question is so asinine that it doesn't deserve comment. Don't tell me that you don't know the answer to such a dumb question. This is what I meant by the establishment beginning to sound desperate.

Or actually I guess it's a pretty smart question, since to a lot of the common herd it no doubt sounds like it's sensible, when it's actually insulting to a thinking person's intelligence.

But if you don't know the answer or pretend not to know, let me know and I'll help you out.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Steve Ulman]

Ok - Call me stupid and duped by the establishment.

Why is it such a dumb question?

[Ron Ecker]

Ok - Call me stupid and duped by the establishment.

Why is it such a dumb question?

"Why bother with planes"? Well, if you simply brought the towers down with explosives, i.e. controlled demolition, wouldn't it be rather obvious that it was an inside job? Duh.

Or how would you explain such an action? It's you true believers in the official conspiracy theory who argue that operatives of the U.S. government could not possibly have planted so many explosives in the towers without being noticed or detected. So if there was no government complicity, and if no planes flew into the buildings, who planted all those explosives under everyone's noses?

Here's what I would do. I would have 19 young Arab patsies run out of the buildings just as the explosions started, and have someone planted nearby to point at them and say, "There they go! They did it!"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Len Colby]

I agree that a limited hangout is probably wishful thinking, and Bush is just being his usual stupid self. This is a further indication that if there was government complicity in 9/11, Bush was out of the loop. You don't trust idiots in such a plot.

As for "heat," I have noticed an increasing number of establishment columnists attacking the 9/11 truth movement, with particular emphasis on controlled demolition of the WTC.

That's the same Catch 22, "heads I win tails you loose" reasoning Jack White uses. If no one from "the establishment" criticized such theories you would ask "why?" ("why not?"), when they do you say "ahah, they're worried we must be on to something!"

"Some of it is so shrill and ad hominem that one senses desperation."

And a lot of the "truthers" are shrill and make ad hominem attacks too. Many debunkers attack the merits of the MIHOP theory.

http://www.911myths.com/

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STU...rd%208-8-06.pdf (excellent written by a real controlled demolition expert)

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm (very good send up of Jones)

http://www.jod911.com/

http://www.debunk911myths.org/?p=10

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ (right wing but good)

"(One attacks Professor Jones by pointing out that Jones believes that Jesus visited the Americas. What a wacko, right? I believe that this is orthodox Mormon belief, and Jones is a Mormon. In any case attacking a leader of the truth movement over his religion is really relevant to 9/11.)"

Its not just that he believes that but rather that he published a paper asserting there was evidence for this based on his interpretation of Mesoamerican art. Just as he has no qualifications in civil engineering he doesn't have any in archeology, art history etc. The point was that he started with conclusion worked from there and pretzeled the evidence to fit it. Science is supposed to work the other way round. This is not any more attacking him over his religion than calling into question the objectivity of a fundamentalist Christian astronomer who published a paper asserting that the archeological record indicated the world really was created in six days. If that astronomer wrote another paper outside his area of specialty and seemed to be once again reversing the order of the scientific method it is relevant

"So regardless of what polls say, or the fact that no civil engineers or architects are willing to risk their jobs and careers by speaking out in agreement with Jones and others…"

More likely they (engineer and architects) recognize how baseless their (Jones etc's) arguments are. There is a whole thread on this topic with no suitable explanations from the inside jobbers. 1) What about engineers and architects in Europe, Asia etc. not to mention countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Palestine, and (pre-invasion) Iraq etc 2) numerous people from assorted other professions have come forward with few ill affects do you think civil engineers, mechanical engineer, fire engineers, demolitions experts and architects are some how especially gutless? Not one with expertise in buildings has come forward.

"…(as you may know, Jones has been put on leave by the bastion of academic freedom that employs him)…"

BYU is a special case because they don't offer tenure. I imagine he knew this when he started working there. But academic freedom has its limits, it doesn't protect academics who reverse the scientific method, do sloppy research and creep close to committing intellectual dishonesty. FWIW I believe BYU should not have suspended him. THEY have yet to establish the shortcomings of his 9/11 research.

His paper has had to undergo numerous re-edits as his critics keep discovering major errors. Many errors remain though, many of them pointed out by an ex-member of his group.

He has been denounced as a intellectually dishonest fraud by the "inside jobbers" 2nd most touted "technical" expert dental engineer Judy Wood, formerly a senior member of ST911 or S911T or what ever they call themselves these days.

"…there is obvious worry in the establishment."

That's wishful thinking on your part again. You don't have any evidence that this true. Do you think all those "establishment" commentators are in on it? What about all the anti-establishment commentators Chomsky, Cockburn, Corn, Doug Thomson (Capitol Hill Blue), Amy Goodman, Chip Berlet, etc. etc. and this guy and this one with a familiar last name. What about Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are they in cahoots with the PTB as well?

Replying to accusations doesn't mean they're valid. Liberals got into uproars over "The Path to 9/11" and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" does that mean that there was any truth to their distortions.

Contrary to "..speaking out in agreement with Jones and others..." they have actually gone out to say he is wrong.

"Of course those who speak out say he's wrong. The ones who think he is right don't speak out. That's the whole point."

No, I think you missed the point there is no evidence any more than 4 or 5 of them think he is right. They spoke up, AFAIK nothing has happened to them.

"Number one, why would you bother with the planes if you could bring down the buildings with bombs?" he said.

I wonder how anyone can quote that as an intelligent question…

Actually, I agree with you that that was a silly question, but I notice you avoided his second one. Perhaps he only looked at this from an engineers point of view and doesn't know the intricacies of the "inside job theory"

[Steve Ulman]

Ok - Call me stupid and duped by the establishment.

Why is it such a dumb question?

"Why bother with planes"? Well, if you simply brought the towers down with explosives, i.e. controlled demolition, wouldn't it be rather obvious that it was an inside job? Duh.

Or how would you explain such an action? It's you true believers in the official conspiracy theory who argue that operatives of the U.S. government could not possibly have planted so many explosives in the towers without being noticed or detected. So if there was no government complicity, and if no planes flew into the buildings, who planted all those explosives under everyone's noses?

Here's what I would do. I would have 19 young Arab patsies run out of the buildings just as the explosions started, and have someone planted nearby to point at them and say, "There they go! They did it!"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Maybe I’m too much of an engineer.

The point is that 99.99% of the conspiracy theories state that the airplanes could not have brought down the towers on their own and therefore the use of explosives is mandatory. If we are to assume that is true – explosives are the only way to bring down the towers – then why add the complication of the planes.

Consider:

If you believe that the airplanes could have been the sole cause of the collapse, then the “official” version is feasible and therefore explosives are not needed and only add a complexity to the plan that is unnecessary.

If you believe that explosives are the only way the towers could have been brought down then the CT’s are correct and therefore airplanes are not needed and only add a complexity to the plan that is unnecessary.

Don’t you think that if it was as easy to place the explosives in the buildings as the CT’s say, then that would have been a much better plan from an operational view (with governmental resources) than the hijack plan? A lot less loose ends, none of the pesky problems of having people believe that the terrorists had the capabilities of flying the planes, etc.

After all, it would be easy enough to sell - “we all know that terrorists know how to blow things up!” (WTC in ’93, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, Madrid, homicide/suicide bombings,etc.)

[Steve Ulman]

Duplicate post.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Ron Ecker]

numerous people from assorted other professions have come forward with few ill affects do you think civil engineers, mechanical engineer, fire engineers, demolitions experts and architects are some how especially gutless?

One was fired from his job, one has been placed on leave, one has state politicians demanding that he be fired, one resigned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth after threats to his family over a factual article he wrote, and others have been publicly maligned as idiots and wackos. So do I think civil engineers etc. are gutless? No, I think they have families to feed and reputations and careers to protect. There's nothing gutless about protecting yourself and yours from unnecessary trouble from the state and its minions.

[Ron Ecker]

Don’t you think that if it was as easy to place the explosives in the buildings as the CT’s say, then that would have been a much better plan from an operational view (with governmental resources) than the hijack plan?

Certainly not. You are forgetting the designed "shock and awe" of it all. This was a spectacular show, the mother of all military/intelligence operations, designed to stun and enrage a nation in order to lead it to war. It was the PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor," but had to be better than the old 1941 version. It was brilliantly conceived and almost flawlessly carried out. Simultaneous hijackings, the planes playing hide and seek with the FAA and U.S. Air Force, planes into buildings, that spectacular red fireball outside the building as Flight 175 struck. All building up suspensefully to the stunning collapse of the towers.

Oscars go to all. Except of course Oliver Stone, who of all people missed the real story.

[Brian Smith]

Right whats actually being claimed here, Brian, is it your contention that the planes that hit the towers were being remotely controlled, but that a missile of some sort hit the Pentagon?I should sat that I dont believe in any of this, but lets play along, why the ywo different modes of attack, if remote control works for the towers why not use it at the Pentagon? By using a missile the conspiritors are running a huge, and needless risk by exposing the plan to potentially hundreds of eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses who by an overwhelming majority report that a very large plane hit the Pentagon.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I have a hard time believing that a commercial airliner with a 125 foot wingspan hit at ground level and did not even leave a scratch on the lawn. I also find it hard to believe that not a single clear video image of the event exists, or that any aircraft - hijacked or not - could penetrate the most heavily guarded airspace in the U.S. over an hour after the first hijacking began. Isn't there some kind of missile defense system protecting the Pentagon? As for them not using the same type of remote controlled craft at the Pentagon as used at the WTC, there are several possibilities - 1) Something went wrong with the plan, and the plane originally intended to strike the Pentagon (UA 93?) did not arrive, forcing the conspirators to use another smaller remote controlled craft or missile -2) The pentagon attack was added on at the last minute by someone inside the operation in order to kill a targeted group of Pentagon employees (ONI?) - 3) Part of the operation was being run out of the area of the Pentagon that was allegedly struck by AA 77, and a group of military insiders hit it to stop the operation from being carried out any further. All of this is pure speculation, of course, but I will not believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon until I see substantial evidence backing it up.

[Steve Ulman]

numerous people from assorted other professions have come forward with few ill affects do you think civil engineers, mechanical engineer, fire engineers, demolitions experts and architects are some how especially gutless?

One was fired from his job, one has been placed on leave, one has state politicians demanding that he be fired, one resigned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth after threats to his family over a factual article he wrote, and others have been publicly maligned as idiots and wackos. So do I think civil engineers etc. are gutless? No, I think they have families to feed and reputations and careers to protect. There's nothing gutless about protecting yourself and yours from unnecessary trouble from the state and its minions.

Who was fired?

I assume you are referring to Prof. Jones who is on leave under investigation – presumably for breaking his contract by using university resources for non-sanctioned work. I guess its ok to break your contract if your heart is in the right place?

Who is being pressured by Politicians?

Who resigned after threats?

I ask these questions because I truly don’t know the answers.

As for your 2nd contention – as a Professional Engineer, I take personal offense. You obviously have no clue what it means to be an engineer let alone a Professional Engineer. Any Professional Engineer is bound by a code of ethics, and believe me they are taken seriously.

From the Connecticut Code of Ethics (All states have similar):

(5) The engineer or land surveyor shall be completely objective and truthful in all professional reports, plans, maps, surveys, sketches, drawings, specifications, other documents, statements, or testimony. He or she shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, plans, maps, surveys, sketches, drawings, specifications, other documents, statements, or testimony.

Real PE’s give their Professional opinion when the participate in peer-reviewed studies, such as the NIST report. Show me ONE Professional Engineer, with relevant experience and expertise who truly disputes the known facts and expert opinions as presented in the NIST report. (For the record, Pegelow admitted he wasn’t familiar with the NIST report)

To state that thousands of professionals either lie outright or lie through omission simply because you don’t like what they have to say, or they disagree with your pet theory is totally absurd and offensive.

The entire CT Code of Ethics:

Sec. 20-300-12. Code of ethics (a) The Board adopts the following rules of professional conduct as the code of ethics for professional engineers and land surveyors. In order to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skills and practice in the profession of engineering and land surveying and to safeguard the life, health, property, and welfare of the public, the following rules of professional conduct are promulgated and shall be binding upon every person holding a license as a professional engineer or land surveyor and on all partnerships or corporations or other legal entities authorized to offer or perform engineering and/or land surveying services in Connecticut. The rules of professional conduct as promulgated herein are an exercise of the police power vested in the board by virtue of the acts of the legislature, and as such, the board is authorized to establish conduct, policy, and practices in accordance with the powers hereinabove stated. All persons licensed under the provisions of Chapter 391 of the general statutes of Connecticut are charged with having knowledge of the existence of these rules of professional conduct, and shall be deemed to be familiar with their several provisions and to understand them. Such knowledge shall encompass the understanding that the practice of engineering and land surveying is a privilege, as opposed to a right, and the licensee shall be forthright and candid in his or her statements or written response to the board or its representatives on matters pertaining to professional conduct. (1) The engineer or land surveyor shall at all times recognize his or her primary obligation to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his or her professional duties. If his or her professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, he or she shall inform his or her employer of the possible consequences and notify such other proper authority of the situation, as may be appropriate. (2) The engineer or land surveyor shall undertake to perform engineering or land surveying assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field of professional engineering or land surveying involved. (3) The engineer or land surveyor may accept an assignment requiring education or experience outside of his or her own field of competence, but only to the extent that such services are restricted to those phases of the project in which he or she is qualified. All other phases of such project shall be performed by qualified associates, consultants, or employees. (4) The engineer or land surveyor shall not affix his or her seal to any plan, map, survey, sketch, drawing, specification, or other document not prepared personally or under his or her supervisory control. A licensee may seal, or sign and seal, documents not prepared by the licensee or by an employee under the licensee's supervisory control, provided the licensee shall prepare, and retain for a period of not less than six years, a thorough written evaluation of the professional services represented by the documents, including but not limited to, drawings, specifications, reports, design calculations and references to applicable codes and standards. Such written evaluation shall clearly identify the project and the documents to which it relates, the sources of the documents and the name of the person or organization for which the written evaluation was conducted and the date of the evaluation; and the seal and signature of the licensee shall also be affixed thereto. (5) The engineer or land surveyor shall be completely objective and truthful in all professional reports, plans, maps, surveys, sketches, drawings, specifications, other documents, statements, or testimony. He or she shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, plans, maps, surveys, sketches, drawings, specifications, other documents, statements, or testimony. (6) The engineer or land surveyor when serving as an expert or technical witness before any court, commission, or other tribunal, shall express an opinion only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts in issue, upon a background of technical competence in the subject matter, and upon honest conviction of the accuracy and propriety of his or her testimony. (7) The engineer or land surveyor shall issue no statement, criticisms, or arguments on engineering or land surveying matters connected with public policy which are inspired or paid for by an interested party, or parties, unless he or she has prefaced such comment by explicitly identifying himself or herself by disclosing the identities of the party or parties on whose behalf he or she is speaking, and by revealing the existence of any pecuniary interest he or she may have in the instant matter. (8) The engineer or land surveyor shall conscientiously avoid conflicts of interest with his or her employer or client, but, when unavoidable, the engineer or land surveyor shall forthwith disclose the circumstances to his or her employer or client. The engineer or land surveyor shall not review or influence the decision of his or her own or his or her firm's work for any public body on which he or she may serve. (9) The engineer or land surveyor shall avoid all known conflicts of interest with his or her employer or client and shall promptly inform his or her employer or client of any business association, interest, or circumstances which could influence his or her judgment or the quality of his or her services. (10) The engineer or land surveyor shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed to, and agreed to, by all interested parties. The engineer or land surveyor shall not permit any person to share in the fees for professional services, other than: A partner, employee, associate in a professional firm or corporation, subcontractor or consultant. This prohibition shall include any arrangement or agreement whereby the amount received in payment for furnishing professional services, personnel services, space, facilities, or equipment used by a professional licensee constitutes a percentage of, or is otherwise dependent upon, the income or receipts of the licensee from such practice. (11) The engineer or land surveyor shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration from material or equipment suppliers for specifying his or her product. (12) The engineer or land surveyor shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with his or her client or employer in connection with work for which he or she is responsible. (13) The engineer or land surveyor shall not solicit or accept an engineering or land surveying contract from a governmental body on which the principal or officer of his or her organization serves as a member. He or she shall not participate as a member, advisor or employee of a governmental body in those actions or deliberations which pertain to services provided to the governmental body by the practitioner or his or her organization. (14) The engineer or land surveyor shall not offer to pay, agree to pay conspire to pay, or pay either directly or indirectly, any commission, political contribution or gift, or other consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing salaried positions through employment agencies. (15) The engineer or land surveyor shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of his or her, or his or her associates', academic or professional qualifications. He or she shall not misrepresent or exaggerate his or her degree of responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures, or this or their past accomplishments with the intent and purpose of enhancing his or her qualifications and work. (16) The engineer or land surveyor shall not knowingly associate with or permit the use of his or her name or firm name in a business venture by any person or firm which he or she knows, or has reason to believe, is engaging in business or professional practices of a fraudulent or dishonest nature. (17) If the engineer or land surveyor has knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of these provisions, he or she shall present such information to the board in writing, as specified in section 20-300-14a, and shall cooperate with the board in furnishing such further information or assistance as may be required by the board. (Effective August 23, 1994)

[Steve Ulman]

Duplicate post.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Ron Ecker]

Who was fired?

Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratory.

I assume you are referring to Prof. Jones who is on leave under investigation – presumably for breaking his contract by using university resources for non-sanctioned work.

I've heard nothing about him breaking his contract, so I can't comment. But rest assured that if people in government want to get rid of you or give you a very hard time, they can find grounds to it. Ask Cyril Wecht, for example.

Who is being pressured by Politicians?

Politicians in New Hampshire want university prof William Woodward fired, and politicians in Wisconsin want university prof Kevin Barrett fired.

Who resigned after threats?

Reynolds Dixon withdrew from Scholars for 9/11 Truth after threats against his children by name, for writing an article on an apparently taboo subject (evidence of a third plane at the WTC).

http://www.prweb.com/printer.php?prid=406904

As for your 2nd contention – as a Professional Engineer, I take personal offense.

I’m sorry if you are offended. IMO if it is possible that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (and I believe it highly probable), then civil engineers or architects somewhere will eventually so state, as a simple matter of fact. There would therefore have to be some reason why none have already done so. But as you point out, I am not an engineer. I rely on the research of others as well as my own two eyes (with particular regard to Building 7), but wish to note that the theory of government complicity on 9/11 is not dependent on controlled demolition of the WTC. Indeed some researchers have called debate about controlled demolition a distraction and waste of time.