Originally posted by Pootie
You are on the Internet... are you qualified to speak? By your own standards you should leave the discussion and log off into oblivion because you
are just someone on the Internet.
Correct. But then I would have to work.
WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002 Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading...
Not quite consensus... not even 1%...
I think it’s odd that you are dismissing a report put out by 25 of the nation’s leading structural and fire prevention engineers…because it
wasn’t put out by 125,000 structural and fire prevention engineers.
That’s a pretty high bar. I don’t know what to say to that.
…also they were working hand in hand with FEMA according to that article. Do you really think they are going to disagree with FEMA?
Yes. I do.
I’ll ask again: Are you an engineer, Pootie? From my personal experience working with engineers, and I have had plenty, they are generally not the
type of people to buy into grand conspiracy theories, nor are they the type of people to falsify their numbers for any reason.
Especially considering most civil engineers work projects that are government funded? It would be virtual grant suicide.
I think you are overestimating the influence of grants on structural engineering firms. We’re talking about some big money businesses here.
You are the on implying that the ASCE in it's entirety is in agreement and I am stating FACT that they have not been polled or taken a vote or
anything of the like.
Fair. I will simply say then that out of the 10 or so ASCE structural engineers that I have personally discussed 9/11 with, 10 of them were disgusted
by the controlled demolition theory. (I’m bad at math though…is that 100%?)
I like how you imply here that being an engineer = higher moral ground... hilarious.
Engineers don’t often dabble in rhetoric. It makes them easy to read and hard to deceive. Can you offer me a couple solid examples of sneaky and
deceptive engineers…it seems as though you’ve had a lot of bad experiences with them.
So you stop reading when you do not understand something?
No. I just don’t claim to understand something when I’m not sure I do.
They are not scientific papers by any stretch of the imagination...
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination. NIST reports are a little steeper than that.
But if you want me to say it I will: I’m so dumb.
Find me a picture of a lump of C4 that was mashed in the collapse...
I can’t. Noone can. Which is why I think most people believe it wasn’t there.
It is fact that the rubble was removed VERY quickly. FACT.
Very quickly like
30 minutes very quickly, or a
few weeks very quickly?
In truth, this is one of the things I find to be odd about 9/11. I’m not sure why so much of the analysis was skipped. I do think, however, that
it’s a pretty big jump to say that it was moved to hide conclusive proof of a massive conspiracy.
Originally posted by Essedarius
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
It's not really the facts that keep the Truth Movement in check...it's the delivery of the facts.
Say it till your blue in the face. The reason "we" lack "facts" is because the EVIDENCE is GONE or being SUPRESSED. [B] AND YOU LIKE IT THAT
WAY.[/B]
When did I become the enemy? Hell, I’m one of the few people in the world that will actually take the time to discuss this with you. I’d think
you’d treat me with a little more respect.