MIT? Purdue? UCLA? University of California at Berkley? Stanford? Georgia Institute of Technology? All of these engineering schools have done multiple studies, investigations and papers on 9/11. oops. Now what?
But you have how many truther engineers at your disposal to do that study? In 13 years? Why haven't they?
Not to mention all of the Engineers and Architects on the AE911 petition. Why aren't THEY running studies?
Thank you very much so I guess that relieves all the rest of us of the responsibility to THINK ..... or? - - - Updated - - - I really can't speak for AE911TRUTH and really ... I personally wonder the very same thing.
it is truly sad to see the once prestigious institutions you named sink so low as to produce totally PC "engineering studies" when in fact these bits do NOT contribute to science at all but simply function to prop up a fraud.
You make this assumption without even bothering to read their studies. That's not very honest of you. Why can't truthers tell the truth?
That is why the issue is no longer about 9/11 after all of this time. The issue is why haven't any of these organizations unequivocally PROVEN ANYTHING after all of these years? Why can't they build a model demonstrating anything? But has MIT actually officially said anything? Sure Bazant was at MIT, but did he have the authority to speak for the school? Sozen was at Purdue, but did he have the authority to speak for the school? What school has made an official statement on 9/11? Provide a link! What are you being honest about? Sozen produced a video from an impact simulation with Purdue's computers. But they admitted that they only did the top 20 stories of the north tower. Since there is no horizontal motion it contradicts the empirical data that the NIST provided on the south tower but none of the institutions you name point out that flaw. psik
Weak argument psi...You're claiming rogue elements at these institutions did the 9/11 studies? If their conclusions were more along the lines of what you think,would it have mattered?
You came up with "rogue elements" crap, whatever they are? Are you saying that schools do not allow professors at a school to disagree with each other and whatever some professor says is the official position of the school? Provide a link to where any official in the administration of a school states their school's position on 9/11. You are just trying to make claims on the basis of the prestige of schools without any actual sanction. psik
You DO understand what 'rogue elements' are...right? And again,had they released a study you liked,would it have mattered to you if the school had sanctioned it?
If I properly get what you are discussing here, there are LOTS of "rogue elements" that have published on the web. The most certainly disagree with the official account of what happened on 9/11/2001. This is a good thing for people who have open minds, however for the vast majority of the population still stuck on the authority figure nature of universities (etc.... ) the fact that prestigious institutions such as the ones named earlier, have allowed their names to be attached to totally PC "studies" that toe the party line as to the events of 9/11/2001 .... A! where are we going & why are we in this handbasket?
The engineering departments of the listed schools, among many others worldwide, have performed independent investigations and published their findings. Truthers in this thread made claims that they didn't and have yet to rescind their false claims. Truthers ignore this and fail to publish any counter evidence of their own.
Counter evidence has been published on the web, but there are people who dismiss anything that they don't like by labeling it "NOT EVIDENCE" and so it goes ...... basically nothing gets done, except that on the various forums, the support for the suicidal Arab hijackers story is being shown to be a losing proposition. Case N point, the supporters of the hijacked airliners story, keep badgering me for pages of numbers to justify my position, however, when it comes to some basic data that should be available, its not there, such as a figure for how many mega-joules it would take to penetrate the WTC tower wall(s) Many sources have published estimates, however these estimates vary a LOT. and it matters as to knowing if the penetration by airliners is possible or not, depending on the estimate of the strength of the wall. Also, I take issue with the statement by the NIST that is "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation ...... " however, it really was NOT inevitable and in fact I would rank "total collapse" at the very bottom of plausible or probable events. That is, I am calling the NIST WRONG! so be it. Upon stating that the total collapse bit was wrong, people respond with bits like "gravity works" but no real explanation as to how it could be, that 110 stories of skyscraper could "collapse" down to ground level, and do so in less than 15 sec and also both towers just happened to collapse in the same way on the same day in response to chaotic damage from an alleged airliner crash.
Really? Can you link to this counter evidence? Can you show me where there is evidence that proved a plane CANNOT have gone through the perimeter facade? No? How about evidence that shows how explosives caused what we saw and why that is a better explanation than a fire/impact damage induced gravity driven collapse? Losing proposition?! We're not the ones having a hard time getting more than 1% of the engineering community to buy into a conspiracy. Incorrect! Chaotic damage that STILL AFFECTS the integrity of the structural system as it acts as a WHOLE.
Do you have evidence that more than 1% of some engineering community has said ANYTHING? Where is it? psik
You can't get more than 1% of the engineering community to back your garbage. In almost 13 years. That is the point. If your claims had any validity, you'd have many more people backing you. I mean, with videos like yours and Richard Gage's "box tower example", I can see why you truthers have a hard time convincing more people and why you currently have the numbers that you do.
The problem here is that the vast majority of the engineering community has chosen to be silent on this issue. Nobody can say for certain how many people actually get it, but choose to be silent on the issue because they don't want to rock the boat. Its truly psychological warfare at work here.
Correct because truthers have no convincing evidence and they deem the subject to be a non-issue. If you folks would come up with something more than irrelevant videos and claims that are backed with no supporting evidence, maybe you'd have something. Doesn't matter one bit. It still doesn't change the fact that the truther community has provided zero convincing evidence. This is why your numbers stink. Stop making excuses and provide a legitimate case for your claims or you'll continue to be irrelevant.
You place the modifier "convincing" in there, this may be the case for you, but for many, the truther community has produced sufficient evidence to matter. The fact that progress is slow, can be blamed on the psychological warfare that is going on.
stalemate, the debunker community has yet to present any solid evidence at all ..... so there we are. Question: do you believe that its possible for a mass to fall on the as yet undamaged part of the WTC tower(s) and pulverize tons of material, and eject said pulverized stuff out the sides of the tower and still have sufficient energy to accelerate as it descends?
I have met Richard Gage. I don't give a sh!t what he says. His organization should have been able to make models far better than mine with the expertise he claims to have at his disposal. Where has David Chandler ever mentioned the distribution of steel down skyscrapers? Regardless of what the truth of 9/11 is one of our problems is that the majority of the so called "engineering community" has not said SH!T! So you are just presuming that they are on your side. Physics does not give a damn about anybody! psik
In this case, it would only take a group of high-school level nerds to properly figure out a proof that the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 could not have happened in the way alleged by the MSM ( etc.... ) without explosives.
