Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

[Jazzz]

Cold fusion, eh? Let's see how that one went down when Jones was involved.

<cold fusion quotes snipped>

Hmmm. Now who should I believe here in the case of the WTC collapse? A well respected, world leading authority on structural engineering - and the man who helped build the towers - or a scientist with a very, err, unusual background.

Tough one, eh?

editor, I can only assume you weren't paying attention to the thread before posting, if you had done so you would have seen that the respected work of Steve Jones is not to be confused with that of Fleischmann/Pons. If you were aware of that then you are knowingly engaging in cheap smear.

 

[Jazzz]

Ummm...Newton might have been a genius, but he was also a religious nutter who preferred the mysticism and obscuritanism of alchemy to actual scientific method.

He also stared at the sun and did experiments on himself.

Einstein also believed in God - in fact it was his belief in God that led him to reject quantum physics because 'God doesn't play dice'.

Exactly. The two most significant physicists that ever lived.

But, it seems their work has been discredited. A shame. We'll have to chuck not only relativity but gravity into the dustbin

 

[kyser_soze]

Well, aside from the basics of the laws of motion, Newtonian physics HAS been pretty much dumped, and there are a growing band of physicists who are pushing the same way with Einstein as well.

 

[Crispy]

And anyway, the fact remains that the guy is not an expert in the field (eg. structural engineering) - find me one of them, with calcs to back him up, and then I might be convinced.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Exactly. The two most significant physicists that ever lived.

But, it seems their work has been discredited. A shame. We'll have to chuck not only relativity but gravity into the dustbin

Cobblers. There's a separation between their scientific work and the beliefs on which they acted outside science.

They were also absolute authorities within the fields in which they worked, not to be compared with people who persistently flout proper intellectual criteria within science and then comment on scientific fields outside their firled of authority.

Know your problem Jazzz? You have absolutely no conception how to compare one thing with another.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And anyway, the fact remains that the guy is not an expert in the field (eg. structural engineering) - find me one of them, with calcs to back him up, and then I might be convinced.

An unwise suggestion, since you can always find one. But you're not going to find very many, are you? And there's a reason for that.

And I'll tell you, it's not that engineers aren't interested in controversies in engineering. They fucking love engineering. Sex, football, literature - forget it. They're interested in engineering. If there was the slightest possibility that the "explosives" thesis had any truth to it at all, these people would be all over the problem like flies on honey. They wouldn't be able to stop talking about it. They wouldn't be able to stop thinking about it.

But they're not interested. Because, y'see, they've thought about it.

 

[Jazzz]

Well, aside from the basics of the laws of motion, Newtonian physics HAS been pretty much dumped, and there are a growing band of physicists who are pushing the same way with Einstein as well.

So, we'd have been better off without these god-bothering nutcases?

I think you are being quite ridiculous kyser.

 

[snorbury]

An unwise suggestion, since you can always find one. But you're not going to find very many, are you? And there's a reason for that.

And I'll tell you, it's not that engineers aren't interested in controversies in engineering. They fucking love engineering. Sex, football, literature - forget it. They're interested in engineering. If there was the slightest possibility that the "explosives" thesis had any truth to it at all, these people would be all over the problem like flies on honey. They wouldn't be able to stop talking about it. They wouldn't be able to stop thinking about it.

But they're not interested. Because, y'see, they've thought about it.

it doesn't matter who did it, 9/11 was the best excuse to start a war anyone could ever dream up, the more we concentrate on the past the less we learn about todays attrocities. Even if it could be proved one way or another, nothing would change.

 

[Jazzz]

Cobblers. There's a separation between their scientific work and the beliefs on which they acted outside science.

exactly, which is why it is ridiculous to smear Jones due to his religion.

They were also absolute authorities within the fields in which they worked, not to be compared with people who persistently flout proper intellectual criteria within science and then comment on scientific fields outside their firled of authority.

Know your problem Jazzz? You have absolutely no conception how to compare one thing with another.

What were the fields of Newton and Einstein exactly? Do remind me.

 

[editor]

editor, I can only assume you weren't paying attention to the thread before posting, if you had done so you would have seen that the respected work of Steve Jones is not to be confused with that of Fleischmann/Pons. If you were aware of that then you are knowingly engaging in cheap smear.

Remind me again why you choose to take the word of someone far, far, far less qualified than a recognised world leading expert on structural engineering who happens to the very same person responsible for building the WTC?

That hardly seem to be the path of a 'truth seeker' - more like someone only interested in having their predetermined beliefs confirmed while ignoring those actually qualified to give an accurate analysis.

Why are you ignoring Leslie Robertson's opinion, Jazzz?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

exactly, which is why it is ridiculous to smear Jones due to his religion.

But not when his religious views begin to affect his scientific praxis. And bear in mind also that on this matter he is outside his field of expertise, which makes his views of no more importance than yours or mine (or Charlie Sheen's).

What were the fields of Newton and Einstein exactly? Do remind me.

Sorry, your point eludes me here.

 

[kyser_soze]

So, we'd have been better off without these god-bothering nutcases?

I think you are being quite ridiculous kyser.

Where do I say that? Nowhere.

The point I'm making is that your bringing up Newton as a counter-example to someone who is a Mormon was pointless since Newton had some ideas that were completely out of whack with stuff as well.

 

[editor]

Jazzz, I know a truth seeker like yourself naturally wants to research the best possible sources, so to help you along, here's just a small part of Leslie Robertson's CV:

LESLIE E. ROBERTSON
P.E., C.E., S.E., D.Sc., D.Eng., NAE, F.ASCE, AIJ, JSCA, AGIR

Mr. Robertson is responsible for the structural design of hundreds of buildings and structures about the including the World Trade Center (New York), the United States Steel Headquarters (Pittsburgh), the Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong), Puerta de Europa (Madrid) and the Continental Arena (Meadowlands) as well as exceptional museums in Berlin, Portland (Maine) and Seattle, and the Miho Museum Bridge (Japan).

Professional Licenses
Structural Engineer - California
Professional Engineer - New York. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states. N.C.E.E.
Civil Engineer - California. Licensed or eligible in all 50 states.
First Class Architect and Professional Engineer, Japan

Honors and Awards

Responsible for the structural design and construction of three of the world's tallest buildings, Mr. Robertson received the 1993 Mayor's Award for Excellence in Science and Technology for his structural design of the World Trade Center that withstood the 1993 terrorist bombing.

Mr. Robertson received the first Henry C. Turner Prize for Innovation in Construction Technology. The National Building Museum and Turner Construction Company established the prize for notable advances and high achievement in the process of construction. The award recognized Mr. Robertson's 50-year career as a structural designer, which has significantly advanced the engineering and construction of tall buildings around the world. He also recently received the prestigious Outstanding Projects and Leaders (OPAL) award from the American Society of Civil Engineers for his lifetime achievement in the category of design.

Mr. Robertson received the Gengo Matsui Prize, the AIA Institute Honor and honorary membership with the AIA, New York; and was recognized as ENR's Construction 'Man of the Year'. Mr. Robertson was recently named one of Engineering News Record's "125 Top People of the Past 125 Years". He is one of twenty structural engineers (nine of whom are living) who made ENR's list of 125 Top People.
http://www.lera.com/robertson.htm

Perhaps you might post up Steve Jones credentials so others can make an informed opinion as to which is the most qualified and credible source to offer an opinion on the fate of the WTC?

 

[snorbury]

Jazzz, I know a truth seeker like yourself naturally wants to research the best possible sources, so to help you along, here's just a small part of Leslie Robertson's CV:
Perhaps you might post up Steve Jones credentials so others can make an informed opinion as to which is the most qualified and credible source to offer an opinion on the fate of the WTC?

Leslie Robertson would have a lot to lose, if he stepped out of line and a long way to fall. My thoughts go out to him

 

[Yossarian]

So you reckon Leslie Robertson is part of the conspiracy? Nice catch-all you have there...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So you reckon Leslie Robertson is part of the conspiracy? Nice catch-all you have there...

It's the best there is.

 

[editor]

Leslie Robertson would have a lot to lose, if he stepped out of line and a long way to fall. My thoughts go out to him

Of course!

He'd naturally be happy to stake his entire career by lying about something supposedly so obvious that completely unqualified bedroom 'truth seekers' can spot the cover up on a grainy web movie!

And not just that - there must be thousands of highly qualified engineers all over the world all keeping schtum right now too!

Remarkable!

 

[Jonti]

I'd of thought structural engineering (and catastophic collapse) is a topic for the art, tech and science section. Maybe in science and environment ?

 

[laptop]

I'd of thought structural engineering (and catastophic collapse) is a topic for the art, tech and science section. Maybe in science and environment

You tried to tell us (prev. page) not to discuss the credentials of, and stupid claims made about, people cited as "expert" sources.

You try to tell us not to discuss the physical and engineering plausibility of what they're saying.

So if you had your way we wouldn't be discussing the real world on this thread at all.

Oh, wait...

 

[editor]

I'd of thought structural engineering (and catastophic collapse) is a topic for the art, tech and science section. Maybe in science and environment ?

No chance of you producing a credible counter argument to Leslie Robertson's expert analysis of the WTC collapse then?

 

[Jazzz]

But not when his religious views begin to affect his scientific praxis. And bear in mind also that on this matter he is outside his field of expertise, which makes his views of no more importance than yours or mine (or Charlie Sheen's).

Utter crap. Have you read his paper? Because if you haven't even looked at it you have no business posting about the case he makes, based on physics which he is certainly well qualified to talk about.

Sorry, your point eludes me here.

Unless I am much mistaken, Newton didn't have any single 'field of expertise', he was a mathematician and physicist, and chemist, and probably loads else. If Einstein had such a field, he created it.

Religious views, maybe ones might even consider crazy ones, have featured among the greatest physicists that ever walked our planet, and as such slurs that religious views are affecting the science of Steve Jones are utterly unfounded, and seeing as people aren't even reading his paper, based purely on 'ostriching'. Sometimes I confess I am disgusted by the shameless muck-slinging that does on around here. This is one of those times.

 

[Jazzz]

No chance of you producing a credible counter argument to Leslie Robertson's expert analysis of the WTC collapse then?

You have posted up a few lines of speech from Robertson. It is not even an article. It is not an analysis. It has not been peer-reviewed. It is nothing more than a vague expression of opinion. And in his words he says nothing to reject the possibility of controlled demolition, because he fails to consider it.

It is with some irony that you perpetually call for 'peer-review' and then claim stuff like this comprises a scientific case.

 

[JHE]

And in his words he says nothing to reject the possibility of controlled demolition, because he fails to consider it.

He doesn't mention pixies either. Suspicious or what?

 

[Jonti]

You tried to tell us (prev. page) not to discuss the credentials of, and stupid claims made about, people cited as "expert" sources.

You try to tell us not to discuss the physical and engineering plausibility of what they're saying.

So if you had your way we wouldn't be discussing the real world on this thread at all.

Oh, wait...

That's a ridiculous claim to make about my intentions, and I suspect when you've calmed down you'll realise it.

You've got sidetracked, that's all. And you don't need to be.

Why not discuss Steve Jones' clalims in science rather than politics? That's where they belong. The discussion may move more slowly, but at least you'll get somewhere.

Look, it's pretty tangential isn't it? To the OP I mean. I don't suppose the Iranian President's even heard of Steve Jones.

 

[editor]

And in his words he says nothing to reject the possibility of controlled demolition, because he fails to consider it.

That's rather like saying that he says nothing to reject the possibility of green lizards smashing the WTC with their invisible claws, because he "fails to consider" that too.

But do elaborate why clever ol you has managed to spot the massive stockpiles of invisibly installed invisible explosives going off, while a world leader in both structural engineering and an absolute expert on the the WTC somehow completely fails to notice? and arrives at totally the wrong conclusion?

Your obsession is going beyond a joke now. Of course he'd fucking know if the building was knocked by explosives. He fucking built it.

 

[Jonti]

No chance of you producing a credible counter argument to Leslie Robertson's expert analysis of the WTC collapse then?

I would imagine not. Did you seriously think otherwise?

 

[laptop]

That's a ridiculous claim to make about my intentions.

No it's not. Twice you (foolishly) tried to declare discussion of the nature of claims and evidence out of bounds. So what's left?

And you did that on a thread started by Jazzz. Who brought our unfortunate cold-fusion person into it.

 

[Jazzz]

<deleted>

 

[Jazzz]

That's rather like saying that he says nothing to reject the possibility of green lizards smashing the WTC with their invisible claws, because he "fails to consider" that too.

But do elaborate why clever ol you has managed to spot the massive stockpiles of invisibly installed invisible explosives going off, while a world leader in both structural engineering and an absolute expert on the the WTC somehow completely fails to notice? and arrives at totally the wrong conclusion?

Your obsession is going beyond a joke now. Of course he'd fucking know if the building was knocked by explosives. He fucking built it.

What is going beyond a joke is your behaviour and hypocrisy (so much for your precious 'peer-review', you don't care about needing it for your evidence, do you?). You are making no argument beyond an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy - and it is an extremely weak one at that.

 

[laptop]

What is going beyond a joke is your behaviour and hypocrisy

Popcorn, anyone?