So nice of you to speak for 'everyone'....And you're partially correct,people will see your posts,only NOT for the reasons you think..
More lack of data + no real rebuttal to anything presented here. where is the PROOF that there ever were hijacked airliners flown into the WTC towers & Pentagon?
Back to the topic: Please provide links to 3 papers published by any of the 2200 Architects or Engineers, showing their work and research on this topic, and let's discuss their results rationally.
Bob ,have you seen this one , if anyone can watch this and not get on TRUTHER TEAM somethings wrong. This says it all in about 11 min.21sec [video=youtube_share;VTANZaYPCkw]http://youtu.be/VTANZaYPCkw[/video]
gB , this was probable the MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN THE TRUTHER MOVEMENT ! The MAIN STREAM MEDIA IS NOW PART OF THE TRUTHER MOVEMENT !!!!!!!!!!! [video=youtube_share;2zY9HfwzGPg]http://youtu.be/2zY9HfwzGPg[/video]
Scott, if a person is in hurry THIS VIDEO SUMS UP THE 9/11 CRIME OF THE CENTURY ,PERPETRATED BY OUR OWN GOVERMENT !!!! [video=youtube_share;l47D5ISemds]http://youtu.be/l47D5ISemds[/video]
Scott, I love this one, RUMSFELD WHAT IS BUILDING 7, YA KNOW THE 3RD BUILDING YOU GUYS BLEW UP ON 9/11 [video=youtube_share;Y0lD-Qrn3XI]http://youtu.be/Y0lD-Qrn3XI[/video]
it's imperative that everyone watch this video about the Pentagon is full of irrefutable information and proof. It is a must watch ! [video=youtube_share;snWlgyt9BYs]http://youtu.be/snWlgyt9BYs[/video]
Fact is, that since the Bazant paper fiasco, "peer reviewed papers" are useless! Look at any of the Toronto Hearings presentations, the person giving the bit, has a question & answer part so as to take feed-back from the audience and also the presentations are complete units in and of themselves. Some will keep demanding papers in the traditional sense, and they will be disappointed .... so be it, however the INFORMATION is available and it is in a form that at least some sentient beings accept as real, why is the format so important?
Um ... wrong. Publishing and peer review is exactly how scientists and engineers advance their work, field discoveries and make changes. I take it from all the dodging that no one can link to 5 papers from the 2200. So, all we have is their signature and Gage's word that the signatures are legitimate? Not very scientific. Here's a question about the certification of the signatures: the linked site lists Mills M. Kay Mackey as a structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado. They list him under "highly credible people". Do you know who that is? If so - do you stand behind his research and credibility?
So you refuse to event look at the Toronto hearings material and you then proceed to an attempt to shoot the messenger.... thanks ever so much!
Where did I refuse? Please stop misrepresenting what I say, Bob. That's known as lying. Do you know who Mills M. Kay Mackey is? He's listed as 'highly credible' on the list of 2200. Do you stand behind his research and credibility in regards to structural engineering?
Did you watch any of my videos ,there' some very good info there, they'll probable convince to get on the right team before full disclosure happens and you have to eat crow ! You wanna save face don't you !
Ironically, I find myself in agreement. Peer review papers are useless to "prove" truther theories are based in science, because the theories are not supported by science. Bazant wasn't the only problem. Richard Gage's group continues to use the debunked vanity published Bentham paper. The upside of G-bob's comment is revealing a willingness of the "truth" scammers to abandon the presence of being supported by science. That will make things much clearer from now on. Again the embracing the lack of science, and an admission they will lose credibility...but G-bob doesn't care... Well, because before you we're trying to claim there were scientific studies, etc. to prove "truther" theories and peer review is how scientists get credibility for their work(and in fact the reason Jones, Gage,Fetzer aggressively played the peer review game for years). But since you've all but admitted scientific credibility is no longer important to your cause, don't worry about it. [
First, it is ridiculous to suggest someone making a reasonable request for facts is a "disinformation agent". Secondly, those of us who are not investing in "truther" theories are truly mystified why anyone would continue to believe what we see as transparently, unsupported twaddle after all this time. Asking questions is the most polite and civil way to understand you. Thirdly, you are not a mind-reader. Just because you may follow every semi-colon of a "truther" trend, doesn't mean non truthers do. Fourth: please show were, when evidence was given, it was ignored. Debunking flawed evidence is not "ignoring" it, btw.
from post #38 If something goes against the mainstream version of things, the science establishment is just as owned as the media are and it won't get reported. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=361646&page=3&p=1064224222#post1064224222
Five papers ... Any five scientific presentations submitted to the worldwide science/ engineering community from any of the 2200 architects and engineers. Anyone? - - - Updated - - - Bump for bob.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True David Ray Griffin Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006. Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm). Hoffman, Jim, 2003. The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html). _____, 2004. Your Eyes Dont Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html). _____, 2005. Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html). Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software. Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel, WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html). King, Jeff, 2003. The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show, Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast). Lavello, Randy, n.d. Bombs in the Building, Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html). Meyer, Peter, n.d. Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?, Section 3 of The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism, Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html). _____, 2005b. WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High, Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm). Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink). Glanz, James. 2001. Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated, New York Times, November 29. Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC, American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html). Baker, Jeremy, n.d. PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7, Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).
Well, that's certainly a step in the right direction, I suppose. But none of the authors you list here are architects or engineers of the 2200 that signed the petition. Perhaps you misunderstood the request. Please link to 5 papers published by any of the 2200 engineers or architects that show their research and conclusions regarding the events of 9/11/01.
