CNN Charlie Sheen poll result

[editor]

Perhaps you'd care to back that up.

What specific parts of the article are lies?

It's all lies, all the structural engineers and independent associations are all lying too, so is every person involved in The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

All liars every last one of them, the proof being, err, that they don't agree with the evidence-free conspiracy theory.

I can't see much point in continuing to host this delusional drivel, to be honest. It's like arguing with a demented Scientologist.

 

[WouldBe]

It's all lies,

All the conspiranoids are also lying as they must have done basic science and been at least shown that putting steel wool into a bunsen burner flame at 700C, the steel glows white hot and melts. But that apparently is impossible.

 

[Azrael23]

Professor Jones of Utah Science Academy.

REPORT

Morgan Reynolds.

Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M

Dr Roberts

Dr Paul Roberts, Independent Institute

I was looking for the wrong person, it wasn`t Minoru Yamasaki it was Frank A.Demartini

INTERVIEW with WTC owner (original)

I`m still looking through docus for the source, so don`t ban me!!

(I have over 100+ hours of documentary I hope you realise what a task that is)

 

[Azrael23]

All the conspiranoids are also lying as they must have done basic science and been at least shown that putting steel wool into a bunsen burner flame at 700C, the steel glows white hot and melts. But that apparently is impossible.

Errr isnt that Iron wool?

BTW editor those questions again,

Why did the commission tell us that WTC 7`s massive support columns didn`t exist?
What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.

I`m not here to argue or name-call. I just want some real responses to real questions.

 

[editor]

Professor Jones of Utah Science Academy.
Morgan Reynolds.
Dr Paul Roberts, Independent Institute

Oh dear. Steven Jones?!!
FFS - even his own university distanced themselves from his 'findings', as well you know.

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Morgan Reynolds has no scientific background related to demolition or structural engineering that I could find, neither could I find any similar qualifications for Dr Paul Roberts

So why should their opinions be held over that of the many, many highly qualified experts from a host of relevant and scientific intituions?

But, to get back on topic, none of these people even remotely fit your description of being the, "Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers," so either produce sources for these people or begone.

I'm getting fed up asking you now.

 

[Jazzz]

Call me crazy if you like, but given the choice of hearing your evidence-free, source-untroubled rantings against peer-reviewed studies by independent structural engineers, architects and building experts, I know which I'll go along with.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

If you're just going to repeat your fact-free mantra without offering a single shred of credible evidence or a reliable source, it's bin time again,

I trust then YOU can find a link to such a paper which is peer-reviewed. Of course we have one, Steve Jones'. One you keep ignoring.

I am staggered by your threats to ban Azrael23, which are indeed cowardly. I've never heard of people being banned for getting something wrong (if that's what he's done). Will you ban yourself for not finding any peer-reviewed paper about the collapse of the WTC as you claim?

But it's interesting to note the caveats in your (non-peer reviewed) link.. the guy is backtracking!

"(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"

hmm. hardly authoritative. He goes on...

"However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views."

This translates as: "yes I'm really not so sure about this anymore and the towers could well have been blown to pieces instead".

Oh dear!

Maybe the bin can save you

 

[ZWord]

I'm afraid that's just not the case fela.

I used to work in the survey business. There are indeed "scientific" ways to go about surveying that can and do produce remarkably accurate results.

AND, your surveyor can also tell you exactly the degree to which those results will be replicated by conducting the same study and, hence, the level to which those results are to be trusted as a true reflection of the opinions of the "population" as a whole.

It involves careful "sampling" of the "population" (which could be a "representative" sample of the whole population aged between 15 and 64, for example, or a "representative" sample another "population", say Han Chinese women, living in Hong Kong, aged 18 - 35, who have purchased headache pills in the last six months.

Sampling is a precise science which takes into account population distribution by a wide variety of factors and often involves identifying and selecting various "data points" (geographical locations,) to ensure that a representative sample is surveyed....

So there!





Woof

All the same, despite the volume of information you've given us to show how polling can be managed so that it's very accurate, there are some problems that I don't think it addresses.

1. If you try polling people, either by phone, or door to door or on the street, there are always going to be people who say, -no, haven't got time.-

So first of all, polls must be inaccurate, because they only reflect the views of the type of people who'll answer polls.

2. Whatever method you choose for finding people who'll answer the questions, you'll always miss out a few sectors. Homeless people. People without telephones, travellers, illegal immigrants, squatters.

3. People who carry out the work of interviewing people aren't paid that much, and are often paid per questionnaire returned, and may not personally care much about the integrity of the poll they're conducting, so despite the best intentions of the poll organisers, there methods may go awry.

4. They never asked me.

 

[Azrael23]

Why did the commission tell us that WTC 7`s massive support columns didn`t exist?
What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.


BTW These people are qualified enough to have a valid opinion. I`m not a trained Marine Biologist but I know vodka kills fish.
Its the same as knowing fires don`t cause buildings to collapse perfectly on their own footprint.
Is there not a principle in science whereby something must be repeatable? WOuld you care to show me the other examples of buildings brought down by fire as CLAIMED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION.
Can you not understand they are lying. How many engineers are going to want to put their career on the line to stand up for the truth?

Oh and another question, how did the towers fall at greater than freefall speeds if explosives weren`t involved?

 

[editor]

I trust then YOU can find a link to such a paper which is peer-reviewed. Of course we have one, Steve Jones'. One you keep ignoring.

Why are you such a liar Jazzz? Far from 'ignoring' Steve Jones, I've just referred to him and his paper less than five minutes ago and posted up a statement from his university where they took the very unusual step of distancing themselves from his findings while publicly criticising his methodology.

And guess what? We've already had this discussion before here - so once again, it's the same old thing being regurgitated endlessly.

As for Azrael, he made this emphatic claim:

...the Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down. Whether your ignoring what they`ve said or your just ignorant i`m not sure.

Despite repeated requests he's yet to back up these claims and it's all becoming very, very tiresome.

 

[editor]

What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.

Still waiting for sources for your claim about the "Fire Service Engineers and the Structural Engineers/Architects who built the towers both agree that fire did not bring those buildings down."

 

[Azrael23]

i`m on my 3rd docu now. Have patience.

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!!!


Why did the commission tell us that WTC 7`s massive support columns didn`t exist?
What is your response to the owner of WTC7 admitting they used demo charges to bring it down? Why did they lie about this at the commission, they say it was brought down by fire on 3 floors.

Why did the buildings fall at greater than freefall speed when the top gave way?

Isn`t it a HUGE coincedence that all THREE buildings that "collapsed" that day all collapsed onto their own footprint in a perfect demo fashion?

 

[editor]

i`m on my 3rd docu now. Have patience.

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!!!

I've already repeatedly answered those questions in far too many of the endlessly recycled 9/11 threads that I'd care to recall.

Try using the search facility.

Have you any proof that all the institutes that I mentioned before are liars by the way? Bit of a seriously defamatory accusation to make that, so I do hope you've got rock solid proof.

Looking forward to your sources, btw.

 

[Jazzz]

Why are you such a liar Jazzz? Far from 'ignoring' Steve Jones, I've just referred to him and his paper less than five minutes ago and posted up a statement from his university where they took the very unusual step of distancing themselves from his findings while publicly criticising his methodology.

Has it occured to you that my post might have taken a few minutes to write?

Anyway, Steve Jones' paper WAS peer-reviewed, and the points in it remain uncontested. You have yet to come up with your own peer-reviewed paper, as you repeatedly claim.

I agree that this is tiresome.

Still, your link where the guy is starting to pave his exit strategy was funny.

 

[editor]

Oh, and final warning. If there's no new credible evidence being presented in this thread when I come back from my tea, it's going to be binned.

And if Azrael is proved to be just another conspiraloon making wild claims that he can't back up, he may have to find somewhere new to post up his fact-free claims and defamatory accusations.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh dear, I'm scared. Bin it now!

Save yourself further blushes.

unless you can come up with a peer-reviewed paper, of course...

 

[editor]

Has it occured to you that my post might have taken a few minutes to write?

Nine minutes, actually.

Looking forward to your apology.

Oh, and unless you've got some new credible evidence to present, this is going in the bin, as will any further conspiraloon threads regurgitating the same tosh.

Note: celebrity endorsement is not new evidence.

 

[Azrael23]

I've already repeatedly answered those questions in far too many of the endlessly recycled 9/11 threads that I'd care to recall.

Try using the search facility.

Have you any proof that all the institutes that I mentioned before are liars by the way? Bit of a seriously defamatory accusation to make that, so I do hope you've got rock solid proof.

Looking forward to your sources, btw.

Oh i see. So if you make a point you need no evidence to support it. If you ask a question I have to answer or get banned. If I ask a question I have to search for your answers (which don`t exist) and if i don`t skim hrs and hrs of documentary film to find the name of the engineer I get banned......
Im still looking for the name....your more than welcome to help me I can send you links to docus i haven`t been through yet.

 

[editor]

unless you can come up with a peer-reviewed paper, of course...

Are you some kind of fucking idiot?

I've lost count of the amount of links to credible, peer-reviewed research material I've posted up here, but if you want to live in some sort of weird alternative world of denial where a solitary discredited paper counts as 'peer-reviewed' because it was looked and found seriously wanting, I'll leave you to it.

 

[nick1181]

At the end of this http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml , the Author says "The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident."

Which makes a nice change doesn't it?

 

[editor]

Oh i see. So if you make a point you need no evidence to support it.

So have you got a source or not?

Or did you make it up?

 

[Jazzz]

Why need I apologise for taking ten minutes to write a post? Even by your standards this is ridiculous.

Of course if you can't come up with a peer-reviewed paper (umpteenth time of asking) you'll have to ban yourself...

last in!

 

[Jazzz]

Are you some kind of fucking idiot?

I've lost count of the amount of links to credible, peer-reviewed research material I've posted up here, but if you want to live in some sort of weird alternative world of denial where a solitary discredited paper counts as 'peer-reviewed' because it was looked and found seriously wanting, I'll leave you to it.

NO, editor.

I haven't seen one link of yours that is 'peer-reviewed'.

I don't even think you understand what the term means. I think you like to bandy it about, because it sounds highbrow.

Steve Jones' paper passed its peer-review process. And indeed got a fantastic reception when he presented it.

 

[ZWord]

Are you some kind of fucking idiot?

I've lost count of the amount of links to credible, peer-reviewed research material I've posted up here, but if you want to live in some sort of weird alternative world of denial where a solitary discredited paper counts as 'peer-reviewed' because it was looked and found seriously wanting, I'll leave you to it.

The thing is, there are powerful political reasons for denying the validity of Steve Jones' views. And you must realise that.

Academics will quite often find spurious scientific reasons to attack all sorts of things, just because it's politically correct to do so within the parameters of their discipline. And in this case, it seems obvious it's an open question whether the university distanced itself from his findings because they were spurious, or because it was politically correct to do so within the parameters of public discourse considered normal in the united states.

 

[Azrael23]

I still can`t find it, its a 2 minute segment in an AJ film. I`ve narrowed it down to about 14 hrs of footage. I`ll look for it at my own pace thankyou, I`m writing an IR essay at the same time as all this drama.

I`ve given you more than enough to comment on, you refuse to answer my questions.

What would you say to the firemen who were there and say it was pulled down by explosives?

Why won`t you look at the incident as a whole right from the pentagon drills, NORAD standing down, obvious prior knowledge, silverstein admitting they used controlled demo, witness reports etc.
You take each small piece and evaulate it on its own.....thats such a foolish methodology. I can look at every cube in a rubix...i`d be no nearer to solving it....

 

[Azrael23]

The thing is, there are powerful political reasons for denying the validity of Steve Jones' views. And you must realise that.

Academics will quite often find spurious scientific reasons to attack all sorts of things, just because it's politically correct to do so within the parameters of their discipline. And in this case, it seems obvious it's an open question whether the university distanced itself from his findings because they were spurious, or because it was politically correct to do so within the parameters of public discourse considered normal in the united states.

Yeah just look at Chomskys take on 9/11.....full of inconsistencies and tbh my opinion of him has reached maggot level.

 

[editor]

Why won`t you look at the incident as a whole right from the pentagon drills, NORAD standing down, obvious prior knowledge, silverstein admitting they used controlled demo, witness reports etc.
You take each small piece and evaulate it on its own.....thats such a foolish methodology. I can look at every cube in a rubix...i`d be no nearer to solving it....

Right. That's it. I'm not having this same old bollocks dredged up all over again.

The next 9/11 thread that offers no credible new information and is just a rerun of the same endlessly recycled tosh will be binned.

Posters who continue to abuse these boards to endlessly repeat the same thing and post up wild claims they are unable to substantiate will be banned.