This is how normal people discuss 9/11

reply to post by samkent

A lot of their degrees do not apply to a 911 investigation.

So far we have one name presented...and that person does have a degree requiring coursework in architecture...Does one constitute, "a lot?" If so, this might explain quite a bit...

There is undeniable evidence (as far as I'm concerned) of a cover up of events leading up to 9/11. For me that's more than enough of reasons to not just take their words for it.

Don't suppose you could enlighten us with 'undeniable evidence ' of ' events leading up to 9/11' without resorting to supposition. Just state your facts-that is all you need to do.

reply to post by totallackey

So far we have one name presented...and that person does have a degree requiring coursework in architecture...Does one constitute, "a lot?" If so, this might explain quite a bit...

The first signatory on their list is Aaron Ashkinazy.

His Bio:

I hold a doctorate in computer science and electrical engineering. I have specialized in writing simulation programs for verifying complex electronic designs.

His statement:

Video footage of the WTC collapses look suspiciously like controlled demolitions. I seriously doubt that the entire reinforced steel skeleton of either WTC building could melt and collapse due to the heat of combustion of the airline fuel alone.

Does he sound like he has the knowledge needed to come to a definitive conclusion?

Other signatories have even less investigative degrees.

reply to post by samkent

Does he sound like he has the knowledge needed to come to a definitive conclusion?

Where does he offer a definitive conclusion? It appears in his statement he merely offered his reasoning behind affixing his signature to the petition. That is the only thing clearly defined (i.e., "I am affixing my signature to this because...). The statement reflects what he perceived via televised images.

Regardless, the person held a doctorate earned from Columbia University. Earning a doctorate from such a prestigious university requires a great deal of work, dedication, and patience.

Regrettably, he is dead.

So far, two out of nearly 1800. "A lot..."

Originally posted by spooky24

There is undeniable evidence (as far as I'm concerned) of a cover up of events leading up to 9/11. For me that's more than enough of reasons to not just take their words for it.

Don't suppose you could enlighten us with 'undeniable evidence ' of ' events leading up to 9/11' without resorting to supposition. Just state your facts-that is all you need to do.

Don't suppose you could actually read my posts before getting in on the discussion?

reply to post by samkent

Other signatories have even less investigative degrees.

I need someone to explain to me why are investigative degrees required to see how they played us?

reply to post by whatsecret


An ad hominem made by those supporting the OS (even though there is no OS) designed to call into question the credentials of those making a commentary on the inadequacies of the NIST reports, while remaining effectively shielded from questioning of their own credentials to:
1) Comment from a position of expert authority on the infallibility of the NIST reports; and,
2) Comment from a position of expert authority on the required credentials of others.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
What exactly is unclear to you?
Tower 7

Why provide a link to the magic land of Narnia.. THe NIST was not peer reviewed science it is government bought propaganda... Anyone will say anything if you pay them enough.

Originally posted by purplemer
Why provide a link to the magic land of Narnia.. THe NIST was not peer reviewed science it is government bought propaganda... Anyone will say anything if you pay them enough.

Since the NIST contributors are identified by name in the report, perhaps you can tell us exactly how much each one was paid in order to produce their unscientific government propaganda? I would like to know how much is enough to get someone's name on a report that, according to Truthers, is easily debunked and would torpedo the career of anyone associated with it. It must be at least the amount that the contributor would expect to earn over the remainder of their working lifetime, right?

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by purplemer
Why provide a link to the magic land of Narnia.. THe NIST was not peer reviewed science it is government bought propaganda... Anyone will say anything if you pay them enough.

Since the NIST contributors are identified by name in the report, perhaps you can tell us exactly how much each one was paid in order to produce their unscientific government propaganda? I would like to know how much is enough to get someone's name on a report that, according to Truthers, is easily debunked and would torpedo the career of anyone associated with it. It must be at least the amount that the contributor would expect to earn over the remainder of their working lifetime, right?

How much would you need to publicly pretend that NIST was able to figure out what happened to building 7 using this computer model?



In other words, how much do you need to reveal to the world that you're crazy?

There are clear present hard evidence against the official story about the 9/11 .but the fact is that most people do not want to admit that their government can lie to them in such a big scale....After all, admitting the facts doesn't do any good (at least short term) to anyone,and actually causes total instability to put it mildly, all over the western world and of course in Israel.

Originally posted by totallackey

So far we have one name presented.

People on the petition named steve who do not have the proper qualifications.

Stephen Cottrell
Bachelor of Chemical Eng., U of Delaware

Stephen Roby
BSEE - WVU

Stephen Seccombe
BS, MS, EE in elect eng, all from MIT

Stephen Smith
B.S. Engineering, UAB

Stephen Stollmack
PH.D. Management Systems Engineering

Stephen Waite
B.S., Engineering, Duke University

Steve Abercrombie
Bachelor of Applied Science (Civil Engin


Steve Bishop
B.S. Electrical and Computer Engineering


Steve Cohn
B.S Engineering, U of Arkansas


Steve Duncan
BSc (Electrical) U of Manitoba

Steve Jackson
B.A.Sc.


Steve Kretschmann
B.S. Eng TE, U Manitoba, MB, Canada

Steve Meadows
M.S., E. Engineering, Texas Tech Univ.

Steve Settles
B.S., Physics, SHSU, BS, EE, Texas A&M


Steven Boyer
B.S. ChemEng, B.S. Biochem, U of Minn

Steven Brantingham
B.S., ChemE, U. of Arkansas Fayetteville

Steven Jones
PhD, Physics, Vanderbilt University 1978


Steven Lewis
MSEE, Electromagnetics & Optics, AFIT


Steven Ramsey
B.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. Microbiolog


Steven Rathbun
B.S. Mining Engineering, SDSM&T

Steven Reiser
Chemical Enginee

Steven Schennum
Ph. D.

Steven Scheye
BS, CHem Eng, NCSU

Steven Shap
BS Elec Engineering Univ of MD

Steven Sorrell
BS, Nuclear Engineering, Iowa State Univ








People on the petition named steve who do have the proper qualifications.



Stephen Barasch
B Arch (U of Ariz), M Arch (Rice Univ.)


Stephen Bourne
B. Arch., University of Cincinnati

Stephen Davis
B.S., M.E., Texas Tech University


Stephen Flickenschild
BArch, Architecture, UofArkansas


Stephen Keith
BS/MS Stanford University

Stephen Lee
M. Arch University of Virginia

Stephen Moroney
B.S.M.E., Drexel University

Stephen Yurasits
M.S., Engineering, Columbia U. NYC

Steve Asimow
BSME from Calif. State University at LA

Steve Dearlove
B.Arch.


Steve MacMillan
Architecture, Michigan Ann Arbor

Steve Thomas
B.S.C.E.


Steven Dusterwald
B.S.C.E. Cooper Union, NY, NY 5/73

Steven Dye
B.S. ARET Bluefield State College

Steven Faseler
M. Eng., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M


Steven Grage
B.S. Mechanical Engineering UIC

Steven Karr
B .Arch.

Steven Kennedy
M.S. Mechanical Enigineering Clarkson

Steven Merritt
MS, Structural Engineering, UC San Diego

Steven Morris
B.A. Engineering, Cardiff, Wales

Steven Schultz
B.A.Sc, Civil Engineering, U of Waterloo

reply to post by waypastvne


The matter of whether these persons listed have proper credentials is purely subjective.

ETA: The list also provides nothing to indicate life experience and how these degrees have been utilized in terms of professional application.

Here's the skinny on this.....I post it all the time..
\ We go by the first reporters on the scene with a video.....that was broacast at the time. about Shanksville.......they sais "not enough debris to fill a suitcase" Then about the pentagon....the same thing.....".NOT ENOUGH DEBRIS TO FILL A SUITCASE." At the time it was going on.....tell me...

reply to post by waypastvne

People on the petition named steve who do have the proper qualifications.

Tell me why do you care so much about the qualifications of people who signed a petition asking for a new investigation? What experience is required to understand that NIST is holding back the information that can prove or disprove their conclusion?


Are these 41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans qualified to challenge the official story in your opinion?

reply to post by whatsecret

Tell me why do you care so much about the qualifications of people who signed a petition asking for a new investigation?

Because their website and their mantra is 'professionals in the know' are questioning the OS.

When you have a BS in psychology saying the physics is all wrong it carries the same weight as the hot dog vendor questioning it.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Tell me why do you care so much about the qualifications of people who signed a petition asking for a new investigation?

Because their website and their mantra is 'professionals in the know' are questioning the OS.

When you have a BS in psychology saying the physics is all wrong it carries the same weight as the hot dog vendor questioning it.

Okay, so to you this proves that there's no reason to question NIST? If yes, why?

reply to post by whatsecret


Why do you defend A&E for 9/11 truth so much, you have already admitted that they essentially lied about how long it took WTC-7 to fall and that some of their experts are experts in fields that have nothing to do whit 9/11.

I dont get why you, a seemingly inteligent person who knows that flaws of Gage et al would defend them so much

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
Here's the skinny on this.....I post it all the time..
\ We go by the first reporters on the scene with a video.....that was broacast at the time. about Shanksville.......they sais "not enough debris to fill a suitcase" Then about the pentagon....the same thing.....".NOT ENOUGH DEBRIS TO FILL A SUITCASE." At the time it was going on.....tell me...

and how about members that are told to go and ask people what time they heard about 9/11 in the u,k they never come back with the answer i wonder why

reply to post by geobro

and how about members that are told to go and ask people what time they heard about 9/11 in the u,k they never come back with the answer i wonder why

Last time you went down this road i debunked it.

the UK news was not reporting the attacks before they actually happened, i explained this to you once before.