PM: not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering... - Page 3

twinstead · 25th October 2011, 12:52 PM

How can the "1600" NOT be ignored? They haven't published anything. What is there NOT to ignore? All they have done is signed an internet petition. All PM could have done is noted that they signed an internet petition. Frankly that doesn't impress me in the least, and I assume it wouldn't impress any real expert.

Oystein · 25th October 2011, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Its not that i take the book serious, if you see who wrote it, its just people without expertise.

But its obvious they want to ignore the 1600 architects and engineers.

Guess what, a lot of them has per example an engineering background.

Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them?

To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A:

Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?

Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering.

However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.

Oystein · 25th October 2011, 01:24 PM

(Could someone who is not yet on Marokkaans "I put my thumbs in my ears, fingers over my eyes, sing LALALA and ignore you" list, and who is interested in Marokkaan's reply, please repost my previous post? Thanks)

MetalPig · 25th October 2011, 01:51 PM

Quoting Oystein:
=========
Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them?

To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A:

Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?

Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering.

However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.

NoahFence · 25th October 2011, 01:57 PM

MM - for you:

Originally Posted by Oystein

Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them?

To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A:

Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?
Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No?

Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering.

However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.

Marokkaan · 25th October 2011, 03:17 PM

Grizzly Bear · 25th October 2011, 03:25 PM

"Mopaul" needs more photoshop training. If you're going to mock your peers & fail at it, then he should do it in style

Marokkaan · 25th October 2011, 03:26 PM

Justin39640 · 25th October 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg

Resorting to spam?

Macgyver1968 · 25th October 2011, 03:34 PM

You're arguing with a 13 year old fanboy who's butthurt because his favorite truthy group wasn't mentioned by PM...and ignores everything that is asked of him. What's the point?

ozeco41 · 25th October 2011, 03:47 PM

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong...

...in fact somebody will probably try to correct me if I'm right...

BUT

Didn't the 1600 +/- associated with AE911Truth simply sign a petition calling for another investigation?

Quote:

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

There is nothing in that petition that amounts to a claim by every signatory that they have used their professional expertise to arrive at a decision that there was CD.

In fact nothing in the petition requires professional judgement.

Redtail · 25th October 2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg

It's funny because you didn't read the book.

twinstead · 25th October 2011, 04:09 PM

It appears Marokkaan has run out of responses, and has resorted to project what he is doing on this thread onto PM. Sad.

Foolmewunz · 25th October 2011, 04:55 PM

So, I've been out of this thread for a couple of days. Can someone point me to the itemized response from our OP, showing the engineering credentials of the LEADERS of the 911 Truth Conspiracy Movement?

I think Alex Jones got an Erector Set for Christmas when he was eight. Does that count?

djlunacee · 25th October 2011, 05:52 PM

I have just a couple quick questions for Maro.

Why do you put so much stock into AE911truth, and discount the hundreds of thousands of other engineers and architects who have been subjected to building code changes worldwide because of the events of 9/11? They don't have to read the NIST report word for word, but you are aware that the NIST report whether they have read it or not, has directly impacted the way they perform their jobs. If they had issue with it, don't you think they would speak up?

You throw the number 1600 around as if its a juggernaut figure. You do realize that in the grand scheme of things, the number is irrelevant, not even 1% of the community they claim to represent. Lets see, they were formed in 2006 if I am correct, so five years they have been at this. 1600 members in five years, that's not even 1 a day. I am not even taking into account that not everyone on that list is an engineer, or an architect.

sylvan8798 · 25th October 2011, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Marokkaan, what do you think of this person's credentials?

http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/

Oh...
wait....

Still waiting for an assessment on my question as well. Is the waiting room thataway?------->

Demo Expert · 25th October 2011, 07:26 PM

Funny images Marokkan,

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

http://i56.tinypic.com/6i4scg.jpg

The majority of engineers think a better caption would be:
Rapid onset, sounds of explosions, freefall, imploded, pyroclastic cloud, expert corroboration, foreknowledge.
..
With an Ae911truth logo over the ostrich.

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg

The majority of engineers think a better caption would be:
Rapid onset, sounds of explosions, freefall, imploded, pyroclastic cloud, expert corroboration, foreknowledge.
I'm right you are wrong La La La la La La La i cant hear you! next to an Ae911truth logo

Oh and by the way I got the list straight from ae911truth.org despite every one of them being totally debunked. They are your main reasons to believe:

- Rapid onset,
- sounds of explosions,
- freefall, imploded,
- pyroclastic cloud,
- expert corroboration,
- foreknowledge.

I am not sure that anyone other than you and Tricky Dicky think that a bunch of 5 year old signatures means anything.

I suspect if people wanted to understand how Dick Gage thinks they should read your arguments and logic.

Grizzly Bear · 25th October 2011, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Demo Expert

I am not sure that anyone other than you and Tricky Dicky think that a bunch of 5 year old signatures means anything.

I suspect if people wanted to understand how Dick Gage thinks they should read your arguments and logic.

His history of arguing these things isn't the best. I've debated whether or not to give his points credit enough to "debate" with but it's kind of difficult when he either doesn't read, or can't interpret what's being posted for him. The link is to one of his arguably most entertaining examples, where every point that was addressed in response to him was either quote mined, or he drew something totally irrelevant and unexpected of the matter... Kind of like what's happening when people point out that Gage is a guy that didn't enter the truth movement until 2006 after hearing David Ray Griffin's radio show, and has done almost nothing but parrot Griffin's claims ever since (he's not a leader)

Sword_Of_Truth · 25th October 2011, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer by education (degreed probably), but not licensed as a Professional Engineer. As such, he is not part of the 1600+.
But mechanical engineering is irrelevant. He does nothing related to building construction.

In fairness, there is more overlap between mechanical engineering and structural engineering than there is between structural engineering and physics, and a helluva lot more than between engineering and theology.

In Tony Szamboti's case however, he is an anti-semite. He has little to make his case with and when backed into a corner, which is really easy to do considering his field of expertise he has a history of calling his opponents jews, claiming they aren't real Americans and then running away.

tfk · 25th October 2011, 10:40 PM

The trolls here can debate credentials until the cows come home.

The credentials of the members of ae911t are completely, utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant are the ACTIONS taken by the very few "experts" in the group to bring the issues in front of a COMPETENT engineering body for review.

As an example, the company for which I'm working has developed a cure for one of the most common heart ailments in the world.

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in signing a petition stating our support for our ideas. (Talk about useless...)

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in getting the opinions of podiatrists, putting dermatologists onto our board of advisers, or asking urologists to do the primary research.

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in presenting the info to anonymous amateurs on the internet. Or to lecture halls of college kids.

Or presenting to biology undergrads, medical school students, interns, residents, psychiatrists, etc. Even tho these are people in "the medical profession", they are abject amateurs in the very specific field that matters.

There is only one place and one audience that we are concerned about: the place is the highest prestige journals in the medical field.

And the audience is the most prestigious, most experienced interventional cardiologists in the world.

Which, because we know our results are solid, is exactly where we've been presenting.

And we listen very carefully to their feedback, and respond to it completely & competently. We do not stick our fingers in our ears, or accuse them of being shills, if they express skepticism over some point.

Nobody else's opinions matter in the slightest.

Gage, Jones, Harrit, Szamboti, Cole, Chandler, etc. are the equivalent to "podiatrists". Their opinions are irrelevant.

Their presentations on the internet are irrelevant. And none of those clowns has ever, or will ever attempt to get within a country mile of an experienced structural engineering review board. With good reason. They'd get laughed out of the room in about 2 minutes.

If there were any real experts (i.e., structural engineers with 25+ years experience in skyscraper design & analysis) in AE911t, & they really thought that they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't waste one ounce of energy on the internet, college campuses, truther conventions, selling DVDs, or Bentham Open Access.

They'd be gathering as many experts in the specific fields as possible to help, and be spending all their time preparing, polishing, peer reviewing first quality papers for publications.

They'd be fighting to get in front of the highest competence structural engineers in the country.

They'd be submitting their evidence to independent labs for confirmation.

So, in 5 years, what have those few really done within the professional arenas that matter?

Nothing.
Not. One. Thing.

And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth.

tk

minnemouse · 26th October 2011, 01:51 AM

So what´s next, marokkaan?
250 manicurists for 9/11 truth?
190 carpenters for 9/11 truth?
344 cosmetic surgeons for 9/11 truth?
25 proctologists for 9/11 truth? (No wait, that cant happen, they know <snip> when they see them

)
77 busdrivers for 9/11 truth?

According to your logic, the above must deserve just as much respect and should be listened to as any other profession. Cause if you are a professor of litterature fex, then you can be on the list of the 400 professors, ref the thread that is linked to in this thread.

Edited by Loss Leader:

Edited to remove partially-masked profanity. All profanity must be completely masked.

Dave Rogers · 26th October 2011, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

I think Alex Jones got an Erector Set for Christmas when he was eight. Does that count?

I put up a 6' by 4' garden shed a few years ago. Proportionately, that makes me more of an expert on anything Richard Gage has designed than Gage is on the WTC.

Dave

BasqueArch · 26th October 2011, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

The trolls here can debate credentials until the cows come home.

The credentials of the members of ae911t are completely, utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant are the ACTIONS taken by the very few "experts" in the group to bring the issues in front of a COMPETENT engineering body for review.

As an example, the company for which I'm working has developed a cure for one of the most common heart ailments in the world.

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in signing a petition stating our support for our ideas. (Talk about useless...)

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in getting the opinions of podiatrists, putting dermatologists onto our board of advisers, or asking urologists to do the primary research.

Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in presenting the info to anonymous amateurs on the internet. Or to lecture halls of college kids.

Or presenting to biology undergrads, medical school students, interns, residents, psychiatrists, etc. Even tho these are people in "the medical profession", they are abject amateurs in the very specific field that matters.

There is only one place and one audience that we are concerned about: the place is the highest prestige journals in the medical field.

And the audience is the most prestigious, most experienced interventional cardiologists in the world.

Which, because we know our results are solid, is exactly where we've been presenting.

And we listen very carefully to their feedback, and respond to it completely & competently. We do not stick our fingers in our ears, or accuse them of being shills, if they express skepticism over some point.

Nobody else's opinions matter in the slightest.

Gage, Jones, Harrit, Szamboti, Cole, Chandler, etc. are the equivalent to "podiatrists". Their opinions are irrelevant.

Their presentations on the internet are irrelevant. And none of those clowns has ever, or will ever attempt to get within a country mile of an experienced structural engineering review board. With good reason. They'd get laughed out of the room in about 2 minutes.

If there were any real experts (i.e., structural engineers with 25+ years experience in skyscraper design & analysis) in AE911t, & they really thought that they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't waste one ounce of energy on the internet, college campuses, truther conventions, selling DVDs, or Bentham Open Access.

They'd be gathering as many experts in the specific fields as possible to help, and be spending all their time preparing, polishing, peer reviewing first quality papers for publications.

They'd be fighting to get in front of the highest competence structural engineers in the country.

They'd be submitting their evidence to independent labs for confirmation.

So, in 5 years, what have those few really done within the professional arenas that matter?

Nothing.
Not. One. Thing.

And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth.

tk

Exactly.
At its roots the truther movement is political, not scientific.

twinstead · 26th October 2011, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth.

It sure tells me all I need to know, that's for sure.

Oystein · 26th October 2011, 04:34 AM

tfk,

suppose the cure that your company has developed is very expensive, and is now recommended by the American Cardiological Society (or whatever the name of the professional body in the US is that would make such recommendations), a recommendation adopted by the medical establishment all over the world, and included by Health Insurers as a cure they are obliged to pay for.
Suppose now there was a small group of physicians, whatever they specialisation be, who honestly think that this cure is craps and does not help at all and is nothing but a waste of money, would these contrarian medical professionals go to students of the humanities, hijack Tea Bagger demonstrations against socialised Health Care, put a petiton on the internet and ask pediatricians and orthopedists to sign? Or would they not rather give the Health Insurers a hint that they are paying billions in vain? Who would have more clout - angry college kids, or that part of the Health Industry that gets to pay for the whole stuff?

Same with criticism of the NIST reports. Gage thinks the recommendations that were a result of the WTC studies are a waste of money.

Real money payed by real companies.

Why don't they go to the real companies that pay the extra real money because of the WTC reports, and convince them that they are paying billions of dollars in vain?
Who would have more clout to bring the NIST reports down - angry college kids, or the Highrise Developers that get to pay for the whole stuff?

The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions.

twinstead · 26th October 2011, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions.

Yea, but unless the developers contact the truthers in person and tell them they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions, truthers will assume they for whatever reason do find fault.

And, even if they for some stupid reason DO personally tell them, truthers will assume the developers actually secretly find fault, but are afraid to come forward.

Rationalization ROCKS! Truthiness isn't the common cold; it's a cancer.

ozeco41 · 26th October 2011, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

...The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions.

Plus don't forget the big role that their financiers and their insurers will be playing.

000063 · 27th October 2011, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

http://i56.tinypic.com/6i4scg.jpg

Just brilliant, you are.

Grizzly Bear · 27th October 2011, 06:15 PM

Pilots, press, & doctors groups already exist apparently, and demand such respect, perhaps you haven't kept up to date with current times. Hell, Lawyers for 9/11truth now want attention

EDIT: Ah poop... Context was to a response made to post #101 by another member. The post I responded to went to AAH... so whatever...

rambaldi · 28th October 2011, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

childish picture

Marokkaan,

we are still waiting for the names of LEADING conspiracy theorists.

Or should we just assume that you abandonded the subject because you realised that nobody fell for your lies?

A W Smith · 28th October 2011, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

...typical troll response

grandmastershek · 28th October 2011, 06:18 PM

LMAO!!! Thats some massive fail Marokkaan

Scott Sommers · 28th October 2011, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Hell, Lawyers for 9/11truth now want attention

I'm not paying attention to this thread, but this caught my eye.

Is this true? When I wrote members, they told me it had ceased operations. Am I just confused about the post?

WildCat · 29th October 2011, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Damnn, the book is just lying, telling no conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. The book just ignored the 1600 architects and engineers thats shocking!!!!

Do you know what year that book was printed? Do you know what year Gage formed his little group of incompetents (who haven't managed to publish a single paper) in?

Grizzly Bear · 29th October 2011, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

When I wrote members, they told me it had ceased operations. Am I just confused about the post?

If that's true then my mentioning would very likely be out of date. I included them based on mention from a previous thread that was made some time ago.

Sword_Of_Truth · 29th October 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Rationalization ROCKS! Truthiness isn't the common cold; it's a cancer.

One that kills innocent bystanders, but unfortunately not the host.

Marokkaan · 1st November 2011, 01:45 PM

And again they remove my posts and the posts of the others can stay.

Oystein · 1st November 2011, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

And again they remove my posts and the posts of the others can stay.

This happens if you run away from your own topic and, instead of backing up the claims you mad in the OP with supporting evidence, as many posters asked you to do, post random off-topic nonsense and stupidities.

alienentity · 1st November 2011, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

And again they remove my posts and the posts of the others can stay.

You are the King of FailVille - the place where epic failures of logic and reason go to die a slow death. That's your home, dude.

Every post you make is further evidence that you have no ability to reason, to use facts and intellect to persuade others of your unoriginal ideas. This OP was bad enough (you missed the point completely) but you STILL haven't understood that you failed on Oct 24.

Truly pathetic.

MIKILLINI · 1st November 2011, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Marokkaan

Damnn, the book is just lying, telling no conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. The book just ignored the 1600 architects and engineers thats shocking!!!!

How much do you pay attention to detail? Your OP stated LEADING conspiracy theorists. LEADING conspiracy theorists! Got that? Can you say that these LEADING conspiracy theorists have backgrounds in engineering, construction, or related fields?

ETA: I see others have caught this detail as well. Marokkaan could you please respond to posts #84 or #85? They're the same...unless you have your head in the sand...but that is typical of you.

25th October 2011, 12:52 PM	#81
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,577	How can the "1600" NOT be ignored? They haven't published anything. What is there NOT to ignore? All they have done is signed an internet petition. All PM could have done is noted that they signed an internet petition. Frankly that doesn't impress me in the least, and I assume it wouldn't impress any real expert.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

25th October 2011, 01:21 PM	#82
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,773	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Its not that i take the book serious, if you see who wrote it, its just people without expertise. But its obvious they want to ignore the 1600 architects and engineers. Guess what, a lot of them has per example an engineering background. Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them? To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A: Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering. However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.
	Last edited by Oystein; 25th October 2011 at 01:22 PM.

25th October 2011, 01:51 PM	#84
MetalPig Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Juicing the piglet since 1989 Posts: 2,003	Quoting Oystein: ========= Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them? To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A: Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering. However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.
	__________________ When I met you my eyes hurt That is how beautiful you are

25th October 2011, 01:57 PM	#85
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,322	MM - for you: Originally Posted by Oystein Who of these 1600 is a leading conspiracy theorist? Every single one of them? To hammer this point home, let us focus on the licensed Professional Engineers among the 1600 whose first name begins with an A: Is Abbas Behnambakhsh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Adam Klein a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad M. Alkhayyat a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Khammash a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ahmad Solomon a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alan C. Gray a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alexander R. Thorp a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfred Lee Lopez a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Alfredo Esguerra a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali Mojahid a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Ali M. Oskoorvouchi a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allan W. McClure a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Allen B. McLemore a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Almond J. Hays a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Amit Singh a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andrew C. Mills a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Andy Wickerson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Antonio Arthay a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur L. Carran a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Is Arthur Nelson a leading conspiracy theorist? Yes or No? Please focus on the word leading in each instance. These are 20 separate questions. If you answer all 20 with "No, not leading CTist", then I think you should reconsider your sweeping claim that PM ignored the 1600 when they wrote that no leading CTist has a background in engineering. However, if you should answer one or more of the questions with "Yes", I expect you to explain to us why you think that person is a leading CTist by stating what the person has actually done to lead. I'll tell you in advance that "filling out an internet form" is not commonly recognized as an act of leadership.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

25th October 2011, 03:25 PM	#87
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	"Mopaul" needs more photoshop training. If you're going to mock your peers & fail at it, then he should do it in style
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

25th October 2011, 01:24 PM	#83
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,773	(Could someone who is not yet on Marokkaans "I put my thumbs in my ears, fingers over my eyes, sing LALALA and ignore you" list, and who is interested in Marokkaan's reply, please repost my previous post? Thanks)

25th October 2011, 03:17 PM	#86
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083

25th October 2011, 03:26 PM	#88
Marokkaan Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Holland Posts: 1,083

25th October 2011, 03:28 PM	#89
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by Marokkaan http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg Resorting to spam?
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

25th October 2011, 03:34 PM	#90
Macgyver1968 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,609	You're arguing with a 13 year old fanboy who's butthurt because his favorite truthy group wasn't mentioned by PM...and ignores everything that is asked of him. What's the point?
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

25th October 2011, 03:47 PM	#91
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong... ...in fact somebody will probably try to correct me if I'm right... BUT Didn't the 1600 +/- associated with AE911Truth simply sign a petition calling for another investigation? Quote: Please Take Notice That: On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. Sincerely, The Undersigned There is nothing in that petition that amounts to a claim by every signatory that they have used their professional expertise to arrive at a decision that there was CD. In fact nothing in the petition *requires* professional judgement.

25th October 2011, 03:51 PM	#92
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	Originally Posted by Marokkaan http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg It's funny because you didn't read the book.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

25th October 2011, 04:09 PM	#93
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,577	It appears Marokkaan has run out of responses, and has resorted to project what he is doing on this thread onto PM. Sad.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

25th October 2011, 04:55 PM	#94
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	So, I've been out of this thread for a couple of days. Can someone point me to the itemized response from our OP, showing the engineering credentials of the LEADERS of the 911 Truth Conspiracy Movement? I think Alex Jones got an Erector Set for Christmas when he was eight. Does that count?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

25th October 2011, 05:52 PM	#95
djlunacee Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Kernersville, NC Posts: 559	I have just a couple quick questions for Maro. Why do you put so much stock into AE911truth, and discount the hundreds of thousands of other engineers and architects who have been subjected to building code changes worldwide because of the events of 9/11? They don't have to read the NIST report word for word, but you are aware that the NIST report whether they have read it or not, has directly impacted the way they perform their jobs. If they had issue with it, don't you think they would speak up? You throw the number 1600 around as if its a juggernaut figure. You do realize that in the grand scheme of things, the number is irrelevant, not even 1% of the community they claim to represent. Lets see, they were formed in 2006 if I am correct, so five years they have been at this. 1600 members in five years, that's not even 1 a day. I am not even taking into account that not everyone on that list is an engineer, or an architect.
	__________________ My scars remind me, that my past is real.....

25th October 2011, 05:57 PM	#96
sylvan8798 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,509	Originally Posted by sylvan8798 Marokkaan, what do you think of this person's credentials? http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/ Oh... wait.... Still waiting for an assessment on my question as well. Is the waiting room thataway?------->
	__________________ DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

25th October 2011, 07:26 PM	#97
Demo Expert Guest Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 20	Funny images Marokkan, Originally Posted by Marokkaan http://i56.tinypic.com/6i4scg.jpg The majority of engineers think a better caption would be: Rapid onset, sounds of explosions, freefall, imploded, pyroclastic cloud, expert corroboration, foreknowledge. .. With an Ae911truth logo over the ostrich. Originally Posted by Marokkaan http://i56.tinypic.com/21be52.jpg The majority of engineers think a better caption would be: Rapid onset, sounds of explosions, freefall, imploded, pyroclastic cloud, expert corroboration, foreknowledge. I'm right you are wrong La La La la La La La i cant hear you! next to an Ae911truth logo Oh and by the way I got the list straight from ae911truth.org despite every one of them being totally debunked. They are your main reasons to believe: - Rapid onset, - sounds of explosions, - freefall, imploded, - pyroclastic cloud, - expert corroboration, - foreknowledge. I am not sure that anyone other than you and Tricky Dicky think that a bunch of 5 year old signatures means anything. I suspect if people wanted to understand how Dick Gage thinks they should read your arguments and logic.
Demo Expert Guest Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 20

25th October 2011, 07:57 PM	#98
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	Originally Posted by Demo Expert I am not sure that anyone other than you and Tricky Dicky think that a bunch of 5 year old signatures means anything. I suspect if people wanted to understand how Dick Gage thinks they should read your arguments and logic. His history of arguing these things isn't the best. I've debated whether or not to give his points credit enough to "debate" with but it's kind of difficult when he either doesn't read, or can't interpret what's being posted for him. The link is to one of his arguably most entertaining examples, where every point that was addressed in response to him was either quote mined, or he drew something totally irrelevant and unexpected of the matter... Kind of like what's happening when people point out that Gage is a guy that didn't enter the truth movement until 2006 after hearing David Ray Griffin's radio show, and has done almost nothing but parrot Griffin's claims ever since (he's not a leader)
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 25th October 2011 at 08:01 PM.

25th October 2011, 08:29 PM	#99
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Oystein Tony Szamboti is a mechanical engineer by education (degreed probably), but not licensed as a Professional Engineer. As such, he is not part of the 1600+. But mechanical engineering is irrelevant. He does nothing related to building construction. In fairness, there is more overlap between mechanical engineering and structural engineering than there is between structural engineering and physics, and a helluva lot more than between engineering and theology. In Tony Szamboti's case however, he is an anti-semite. He has little to make his case with and when backed into a corner, which is really easy to do considering his field of expertise he has a history of calling his opponents jews, claiming they aren't real Americans and then running away.

25th October 2011, 10:40 PM	#100
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	The trolls here can debate credentials until the cows come home. The credentials of the members of ae911t are completely, utterly irrelevant. What is relevant are the ACTIONS taken by the very few "experts" in the group to bring the issues in front of a COMPETENT engineering body for review. As an example, the company for which I'm working has developed a cure for one of the most common heart ailments in the world. Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in signing a petition stating our support for our ideas. (Talk about useless...) Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in getting the opinions of podiatrists, putting dermatologists onto our board of advisers, or asking urologists to do the primary research. Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in presenting the info to anonymous amateurs on the internet. Or to lecture halls of college kids. Or presenting to biology undergrads, medical school students, interns, residents, psychiatrists, etc. Even tho these are people in "the medical profession", they are abject amateurs in the very specific field that matters. There is only one place and one audience that we are concerned about: the place is the highest prestige journals in the medical field. And the audience is the most prestigious, most experienced interventional cardiologists in the world. Which, because we know our results are solid, is exactly where we've been presenting. And we listen very carefully to their feedback, and respond to it completely & competently. We do not stick our fingers in our ears, or accuse them of being shills, if they express skepticism over some point. Nobody else's opinions matter in the slightest. Gage, Jones, Harrit, Szamboti, Cole, Chandler, etc. are the equivalent to "podiatrists". Their opinions are irrelevant. Their presentations on the internet are irrelevant. And none of those clowns has ever, or will ever attempt to get within a country mile of an experienced structural engineering review board. With good reason. They'd get laughed out of the room in about 2 minutes. If there were any real experts (i.e., structural engineers with 25+ years experience in skyscraper design & analysis) in AE911t, & they really thought that they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't waste one ounce of energy on the internet, college campuses, truther conventions, selling DVDs, or Bentham Open Access. They'd be gathering as many experts in the specific fields as possible to help, and be spending all their time preparing, polishing, peer reviewing first quality papers for publications. They'd be fighting to get in front of the highest competence structural engineers in the country. They'd be submitting their evidence to independent labs for confirmation. So, in 5 years, what have those few really done within the professional arenas that matter? Nothing. Not. One. Thing. And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth. tk
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

26th October 2011, 02:38 AM	#102
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz I think Alex Jones got an Erector Set for Christmas when he was eight. Does that count? I put up a 6' by 4' garden shed a few years ago. Proportionately, that makes me more of an expert on anything Richard Gage has designed than Gage is on the WTC. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

26th October 2011, 02:54 AM	#103
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Whispering Glades, Fredonia Posts: 1,376	Originally Posted by tfk The trolls here can debate credentials until the cows come home. The credentials of the members of ae911t are completely, utterly irrelevant. What is relevant are the ACTIONS taken by the very few "experts" in the group to bring the issues in front of a COMPETENT engineering body for review. As an example, the company for which I'm working has developed a cure for one of the most common heart ailments in the world. Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in signing a petition stating our support for our ideas. (Talk about useless...) Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in getting the opinions of podiatrists, putting dermatologists onto our board of advisers, or asking urologists to do the primary research. Nobody in the company is the slightest bit interested in presenting the info to anonymous amateurs on the internet. Or to lecture halls of college kids. Or presenting to biology undergrads, medical school students, interns, residents, psychiatrists, etc. Even tho these are people in "the medical profession", they are abject amateurs in the very specific field that matters. There is only one place and one audience that we are concerned about: the place is the highest prestige journals in the medical field. And the audience is the most prestigious, most experienced interventional cardiologists in the world. Which, because we know our results are solid, is exactly where we've been presenting. And we listen very carefully to their feedback, and respond to it completely & competently. We do not stick our fingers in our ears, or accuse them of being shills, if they express skepticism over some point. Nobody else's opinions matter in the slightest. Gage, Jones, Harrit, Szamboti, Cole, Chandler, etc. are the equivalent to "podiatrists". Their opinions are irrelevant. Their presentations on the internet are irrelevant. And none of those clowns has ever, or will ever attempt to get within a country mile of an experienced structural engineering review board. With good reason. They'd get laughed out of the room in about 2 minutes. If there were any real experts (i.e., structural engineers with 25+ years experience in skyscraper design & analysis) in AE911t, & they really thought that they had anything of substance, then they wouldn't waste one ounce of energy on the internet, college campuses, truther conventions, selling DVDs, or Bentham Open Access. They'd be gathering as many experts in the specific fields as possible to help, and be spending all their time preparing, polishing, peer reviewing first quality papers for publications. They'd be fighting to get in front of the highest competence structural engineers in the country. They'd be submitting their evidence to independent labs for confirmation. So, in 5 years, what have those few really done within the professional arenas that matter? Nothing. Not. One. Thing. And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth. tk Exactly. At its roots the truther movement is political, not scientific.
	__________________ "If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them."-LSSBB "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. " - Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift

26th October 2011, 03:21 AM	#104
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,577	Originally Posted by tfk And that tells anyone all they need to know about the integrity & the competence of AE911Truth. It sure tells me all I need to know, that's for sure.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

26th October 2011, 04:34 AM	#105
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,773	tfk, suppose the cure that your company has developed is very expensive, and is now recommended by the American Cardiological Society (or whatever the name of the professional body in the US is that would make such recommendations), a recommendation adopted by the medical establishment all over the world, and included by Health Insurers as a cure they are obliged to pay for. Suppose now there was a small group of physicians, whatever they specialisation be, who honestly think that this cure is craps and does not help at all and is nothing but a waste of money, would these contrarian medical professionals go to students of the humanities, hijack Tea Bagger demonstrations against socialised Health Care, put a petiton on the internet and ask pediatricians and orthopedists to sign? Or would they not rather give the Health Insurers a hint that they are paying billions in vain? Who would have more clout - angry college kids, or that part of the Health Industry that gets to pay for the whole stuff? Same with criticism of the NIST reports. Gage thinks the recommendations that were a result of the WTC studies are a waste of money. Real money payed by real companies. Why don't they go to the real companies that pay the extra real money because of the WTC reports, and convince them that they are paying billions of dollars in vain? Who would have more clout to bring the NIST reports down - angry college kids, or the Highrise Developers that get to pay for the whole stuff? The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions.

26th October 2011, 05:15 AM	#106
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,577	Originally Posted by Oystein The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions. Yea, but unless the developers contact the truthers in person and tell them they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions, truthers will assume they for whatever reason do find fault. And, even if they for some stupid reason DO personally tell them, truthers will assume the developers actually secretly find fault, but are afraid to come forward. Rationalization ROCKS! Truthiness isn't the common cold; it's a cancer.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

26th October 2011, 06:14 AM	#107
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by Oystein ...The fact that highrise developers all around the world are not working to save billions of dollars by reversing NIST's recommendations is good evidence that they have found no fundamental fault with NIST's conclusions. Plus don't forget the big role that their financiers and their insurers will be playing.

27th October 2011, 06:34 AM	#108
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Marokkaan http://i56.tinypic.com/6i4scg.jpg Just brilliant, you are.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

27th October 2011, 06:15 PM	#109
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	Pilots, press, & doctors groups already exist apparently, and demand such respect, perhaps you haven't kept up to date with current times. Hell, Lawyers for 9/11truth now want attention EDIT: Ah poop... Context was to a response made to post #101 by another member. The post I responded to went to AAH... so whatever...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 27th October 2011 at 07:16 PM.

28th October 2011, 07:17 AM	#110
rambaldi Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 163	Originally Posted by Marokkaan childish picture Marokkaan, we are still waiting for the names of LEADING conspiracy theorists. Or should we just assume that you abandonded the subject because you realised that nobody fell for your lies?
rambaldi Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 163

28th October 2011, 05:43 PM	#111
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	911 troll still trolling along Originally Posted by Marokkaan ...typical troll response
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

28th October 2011, 06:18 PM	#112
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	LMAO!!! Thats some massive fail Marokkaan
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

28th October 2011, 06:33 PM	#113
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,642	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Hell, Lawyers for 9/11truth now want attention I'm not paying attention to this thread, but this caught my eye. Is this true? When I wrote members, they told me it had ceased operations. Am I just confused about the post?
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy

29th October 2011, 07:27 AM	#114
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by Marokkaan Damnn, the book is just lying, telling no conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. The book just ignored the 1600 architects and engineers thats shocking!!!! Do you know what year that book was printed? Do you know what year Gage formed his little group of incompetents (who haven't managed to publish a single paper) in?

29th October 2011, 08:34 AM	#115
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	Originally Posted by Scott Sommers When I wrote members, they told me it had ceased operations. Am I just confused about the post? If that's true then my mentioning would very likely be out of date. I included them based on mention from a previous thread that was made some time ago.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,690	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

29th October 2011, 11:11 AM	#116
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by twinstead Rationalization ROCKS! Truthiness isn't the common cold; it's a cancer. One that kills innocent bystanders, but unfortunately not the host.