The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I know you are a Keynesian, whether you know it or not, and all Keyenesians benefit and are paid by the people using the chain of reasoning that promulgates the OS. Any one who has enough money to support an architect is heavily invested in the financial structure, the Keynesians.

I don't think that you can name an architect who isn't.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Oh yeah, the BBC newspaper that got it wrong. I recall that. Funny. It wasnt mentioned in either FEMA or NIST, and that little picture was from ONE news organization that snot even American. That came out a short time after 9/11 which was obviously erroneous.

By the way, do I need to remind you? The BBC has nothing to do with FEMA or NIST. Just like how NIST and FEMA are two separate organizations. The BBC is a British newspaper. FEMA is a government organizations tasked with security and response to disasters in the US. NIST is a national institute of standards for engineering and technology.
NIST Mission

You have very little clue about what you post but think you know all.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

I know you are a Keynesian, whether you know it or not, and all Keyenesians benefit and are paid by the people using chain of reasoning that promulgates the OS. Any one who has enough money to support an architect is heavily invested in the financial structure, the Keynesians.

I don't think that you can name an architect who isn't.

I think you need to be an economist to be a Keynesian, in any meaningful sense. You also don't seem to know what a Keynesian is. It is certainly not a set of ideas that depends on being "heavily invested in the financial sector".

Moreover, you've just made a bunch of unsupported claims, "... all Keynesians benefit and are paid by the people uusing chain of reasoning that promulgates the OS." and "anyone who has enough money to support an architect is heavily invested in the financial structure..." and "I know you are a Keynesian, whether you know it or not".

Since you don't know what a Keynesian is, and don't support your claims with evidence, I will disregard your claims.

reply to post by GenRadek

You have very little clue about what you post but think you know all.

No one knows it all, but I do know you have a nation, alliance, government, belief and job to protect. So what if a few thousand dies that day, millions have died since and isn't that what is important. Hell we may all die as this middle east conflict continues to bubble and wouldn't that be great. Any peace talks are sure to fail as no one cares about the facts, it is all about the power, who has the strongest will and the most muscle. And so what, who really cares as long as you have a job, isn't that something worth fighting for. Your just one more cog in the machine, you have seen what happens to those with morals, what difference could you make anyway? The CIA, courts, media, bankers and who knows how many other organisations are in on it. Just one big boys club, so what if your mates are psychopaths, they are your mates above all else.

reply to post by kwakakev


Would you mind stopping with the accusations? Threads regularly get shut down when we start discussing each other and not the topic. I'm getting tired of this, frankly.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Do you remember this silly diagram?



Actually, it isn't silly at all. It's criminally complicit.

911 Physics Truth - Tower Structure

911physicstruth.wetpaint.com...

FEMA and NIST Core Deception

algoxy.com...

They should all be hung by their balls..... but they probably don't have any......

Do you really believe that the WTC towers had a concrete core? Because that's what those websites claim. It's kind of ridiculous, frankly. I'd like to see one unambiguous photo of this supposed concrete core, during construction.

If you believe this drek without a single photo or drawing (from the era) to back it up, you're being suckered.

I don't know what you're talking about. The sites are full of photos of the core being built and it is clear they are made of steel. The only reference I can find to a concrete core is at the base of the building, apparently for the first few floors.

The bottom line is that the core deception originally came from FEMA and was reflected in the initial NIST study. These issues are thoroughly covered in those links. I pointed this out because Radek and the rest of your tag team are constantly citing the NIST report as if it came from God, and that is the furthest thing from the truth. It came from government shills who purposely tried to cover up how massive the cores were and tried to lie about how they were built. The diagram tried to make people think there was this skinny little core in the middle, as if they would never be found out.

Truthfully, just like the downed light poles, they would have been better off leaving things alone.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

I know you are a Keynesian, whether you know it or not, and all Keyenesians benefit and are paid by the people using chain of reasoning that promulgates the OS. Any one who has enough money to support an architect is heavily invested in the financial structure, the Keynesians.

I don't think that you can name an architect who isn't.

I think you need to be an economist to be a Keynesian, in any meaningful sense. You also don't seem to know what a Keynesian is. It is certainly not a set of ideas that depends on being "heavily invested in the financial sector".

Moreover, you've just made a bunch of unsupported claims, "... all Keynesians benefit and are paid by the people uusing chain of reasoning that promulgates the OS." and "anyone who has enough money to support an architect is heavily invested in the financial structure..." and "I know you are a Keynesian, whether you know it or not".

Since you don't know what a Keynesian is, and don't support your claims with evidence, I will disregard your claims.

If you don't understand economics you could just say so.

Keynesianism is exactly being heavily invested in the financial sector, invested in one, if not both, senses of the word. Everyone who supports the Federal Reserve and the financial bailout of 2008 is a Keynesian economist. Since you have no problem with that, as most people don't, you must be a Keynesian by default.

Keynesianism is the status quo. The powers that keep the status quo benefit from the OS-- rightly or wrongly, they have more legal and political power than they had before 911. All scientists, engineers and architects work for the powers that keep the status quo (who else could pay them?) and could only diminish that power by changing the OS.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I don't know what you're talking about. The sites are full of photos of the core being built and it is clear they are made of steel. The only reference I can find to a concrete core is at the base of the building, apparently for the first few floors.

I'm talking about this:

The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another outside tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity.

Link

I guess the wetpaint page doesn't actually contain the "concrete core" myth. My mistake. I was flipping between tabs.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

If you don't understand economics you could just say so.

Keynesianism is exactly being heavily invested in the financial sector, invested in one, if not both, senses of the word. Everyone who supports the Federal Reserve and the financial bailout of 2008 is a Keynesian economist.

Dude, just read the wikipedia article. You have no Idea what you're talking about. I'm not going to discuss your fantasies about Keynsianism.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But that is the 9/11 blunder. This is too simple a problem. Only idiots can believe the OS.

So why can't you find one physicist on the entire planet to agree with you?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


There is a lot with this topic I find tiring as well. So to get back on topic here are 20 experts from around the world www.consensus911.org... including US, Canada, UK, Italy and Denmark. I am sure there are many others if anyone was really interested and started digging with the first link I posted.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

If you don't understand economics you could just say so.

Keynesianism is exactly being heavily invested in the financial sector, invested in one, if not both, senses of the word. Everyone who supports the Federal Reserve and the financial bailout of 2008 is a Keynesian economist.

Dude, just read the wikipedia article. You have no Idea what you're talking about. I'm not going to discuss your fantasies about Keynsianism.
en.wikipedia.org...

From your Sited Wiki Article

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which

require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government

to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1

Like I said, Keynesianism is using the financial system to keep the economy under control.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
[
From your Sited Wiki Article

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which

require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government

to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1

Like I said, Keynesianism is using the financial system to keep the economy under control.

1. That is not what you had said before.
2. You're conflating "the financial system" with the central bank and government expenditure.
3. You still have not provided any evidence for your original claims that all architects are employed by people and organizations that profit from the "OS".

reply to post by GenRadek


right you are....forget the bbc...but hey you think that FEMA and NIST are so far removed....

I think not....It is strange how similar names keep popping up over and over with anything to do with the OS

5.7.1 A Continuity of Faces
There does appear to be a certain continuity of staffing of the several studies supporting the Official
Story: According to Kevin Ryan, [275]the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Team that first
looked into the collapse of the Twin Towers was initially led by the same team that looked into the
Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing. Initial ASCE team leaders as of 9/14/01 included Gene
Corley, Sr. VP of CTL Engineering as chief lead, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen.
Murrah building bombing report authors were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, PaulMlakar, and Mete
Sozen. [276]Corley “knew” once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did: “I just
didn’t know when it was going to happen,” said Corley. [St. Petersburg Times] [277]
Interestingly, NYC put the firm of Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of the WTC site. Richard Tomasetti
(Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction
that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.” [278]
The first NIST meeting included comments from Gene Corley and Richard Tomasetti. Charles Thornton
was on the NIST related National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee. [279]FEMA authors
Therese McAllister, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, William Baker, Harold Nelson, and Ramon
Gilsanz were co-authors for portions of the NIST report.
An internet search of Gene Corley, Charles H. Thornton, Richard L. Tomasetti, Paul Mlakar, and Mete
Sozen produces mixed results. Although Corley and Mlakar could be seen as having potential conflicts
of interest due to their association with the defense industry, Thorntonis considered a hero, having
received the 2001 Engineering News-Record Award of Excellence for being “the consummate mentor
and role model.” [280]
Kevin Ryan notes that Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, and Richard Tomasetti, involved in the
ASCE/FEMA studies, were also involved in the studies to establish the Silverstein insurance claim.
Although both studies agreed that airplane impact and fire were thecause of collapse, the Weidlinger -
Silverstein studies directly contradicted the FEMA report regarding the floor trusses as a mechanism of
collapse.[281]Were these engineers unaware of this contradiction?

From a PDF by the seattle911visibilityproject.org

Do people not see the conflicts here....are they not to be questioned.....not sure.....but i guess you think it is business as usual.

reply to post by kwakakev

So to get back on topic here are 20 experts from around the world www.consensus911.org... including US, Canada, UK, Italy and Denmark. I am sure there are many others if anyone was really interested and started digging with the first link I posted.

Are you serious? Did you even read their qualifications????

Out of the 22 on that page you listed.

Two are journalists.
Steven Jones with his debunked thermite paper.
MacQueen Associate Professor (retired) in the Department of Religious Studies .
A film writer.
Two are lawyers.
One electronic engineer.
A professional counselor.
A physical therapist.
An American actor in film.
An Associate Professor of Public Administration.
An President of the American Association of Public Health.
David Ray Griffin: Emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He sells books on 911.
And finnally one who is a retired health sciences librarian.

That's 15 out of the 22 who's specialty has nothing to do with the reasons the buildings came down.

And I'll bet that not one of the other seven is willing to put their name on a paper for peer review.

Once again where are all these experts to support the CD story?
The entire planet and none believe in CD.

So also we look into some of these names...and guess what....an interview with a member....from 1988

he talks about none other than a 747 striking a building...what changed his tune.




what really ......And people still believe the Crud we are fed...amazing.

Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti involved in study to establish Silverstein insurance claim


Report results
No floor failure of any kind
Column failure only
Directly contradicts FEMA report


yuppers definately not what FEMA said....I mean....how blatant do things have to be for people to not see what has gone on with coverup after cover up.

Originally posted by samkent
Are you serious? Did you even read their qualifications????

Out of the 22 on that page you listed.

Two are journalists.
Steven Jones with his debunked thermite paper.
MacQueen Associate Professor (retired) in the Department of Religious Studies .
A film writer.
Two are lawyers.
One electronic engineer.
A professional counselor.
A physical therapist.
An American actor in film.
An Associate Professor of Public Administration.
An President of the American Association of Public Health.
David Ray Griffin: Emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He sells books on 911.
And finnally one who is a retired health sciences librarian.

That's 15 out of the 22 who's specialty has nothing to do with the reasons the buildings came down.

And I'll bet that not one of the other seven is willing to put their name on a paper for peer review.

Once again where are all these experts to support the CD story?
The entire planet and none believe in CD.

And what does ANY of this have to do with the actual laws of physics?

How do "beliefs" determine what brought down the towers?

What do you expect to gain by endlessly arguing over who believes what?

Since when is the truth determined by a majority in an opinion poll?

The masses have been wrong on just about everything in the past.

I mean, post after post, it's quite evident that you are desperately grasping onto a belief of your OWN.

And then, you completely disqualify your entire post with this statement:

"The entire planet and none believe in CD."

Just a little word of friendly advice, if you're going to spend your existence on these forums arguing in favor of the perps..... we don't need the hyperbole. This makes you as transparent as Saran Wrap.

Never use the words "never", "none", "always", "everybody", "no one", "all" etc. It really does you no service whatsoever. All these words do is bring your own personal bias to the forefront. It is not objective debating.

reply to post by plube

He's probably talking about the design wind loads for the building when he's throwing those numbers around. Not only that, but he's clearly saying that the impact of a jet liner would not "knock over" the towers -- which it didn't.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Sorry m8...i think your mistaken...he is talking about a aircraft hitting a building...this was in 1988...this is the same man who wrote was party to two conflicting reports...one by FEMA and one concerning the Silverman Report.

listen to what he said....about the elements....of the structure....just as what occurred in the towers...and listen to what he is stating about mass.

Or does it need to be broken down....because it is very very clear what he is saying in the video.

the largest aircraft flying today he says...a 747....300tons

hitting a building design to carry 13,000 tons...."could knock out a column"...i mean come on why try to obfuscate what is clearly being said....localized damage.

Is your objective here only to say one thing...and to portray only one thing....or is it to learn something...IF it is shown how criminal it is, the whole 9/11...then will you still be doing what your doing...because then it does mean your supporting criminals against humanity.

the clip is only 50sec long....it is not that hard to follow.

so what changed his views...I would venture a guess....MONEY.

I could go further but i will not take this thread off topic...as i have always looked at 9/11 as a crime scene...not a terrorist act.

However, referring to the subsequent WTC investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (see August 21, 2002), Tomasetti will later admit that had he known the direction that investigations into the collapses would take, he would have taken a different stand.

Feeling a bit guilty

I mean is he saying if he knew it was not just a simple collapse due to fires and planes...that is possibly was a criminal act he might not have been so eager to have evidence shipped out and destroyed.

Originally posted by plube
because it is very very clear what he is saying in the video.

actually, it is not clear at all, since this snippet was taken out of its context. My guess when he says "... a building that's been designed to carry 13,000 tons..." He is likely talking about the wind load that it was designed for, since he is not an idiot, and obviously, the plane is going to strike horizontally, not vertically. and wind loads are horizontal... thus the comparison. You'll note that he makes no mention whatever of fire as a potential problem. He's only talking about the impact. and he's pretty much on the money, although the planes did a lot more damage than he describes in a casual interview, the impacts did not bring them down alone.