Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So you don't get all your 9/11 conspiracy theories from the internet? You do realize anyone can claim to be scientific or have followed scientific processes? How is it ad hominem when it's accurate?

Your ‘accurate’ statement was nothing but your baseless accusation that ‘any scientist that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory is disreputable’. You’ve gone out of your way to dance around their actual science, and dismissed everything they have said out of pure bias. You haven’t really done anything to prove the scientists who are skeptical of the official report are anything but credible, by any other method but simply stating that the are skeptical of the official report.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

These "scientists" published their papers to a dubious source and have since been dropped by the publisher.
Submitting is the easy party; standing up to peer review is the hard part.. Guess who failed peer review?

Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:

I. Foundation of Scientific Integrity in Government
NIST has in place a number of policies and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific and technological information it develops and disseminates to the public. Those policies and procedures include rigorous internal peer review of any published scientific and technological information.
NIST Scientific Integrity Summary

You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?

I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community. If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Not reputable enough to convince other scientists.

As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So Bush' family has been planning 9/11 since the early 90's? Bush knew he would be elected President and be able to take advantage of the situation before the American people were elected.. Is this what you are implying?

IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).

Originally Posted by DeathCell

If there were explosives planted in WTC7 why did they bother sending Airplanes into the twin towers?

I hate to say it, but: Spectacle
Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever. Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception. People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What possible reason for destroying a building next to the Twin Towers is there?
What reason for the act of making a building next to the towers go down.. is there? What does this gain the secret control force that the twin towers didn't already accomplish?

The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?

Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC - CBS News

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What does anyone gain other than insurance money for one guy?

Why would the secret controlling government that you obviously believe in run an insurance scam when they can just print their own money whenever they want?

I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So you have a family member of Bush working in big business for a security company; not quite the smoking gun you're looking for eh?

You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’ Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.

I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory. I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

You believe military-grade explosives allow for buildings to fall straight down? Could you please show me a study on the use of military-grade explosives for neat and orderly demolitions; as is so argued by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. You can't have your cake and eat it to after all.. Industrial demolition projects take a lot of time because they aren't as simple as spraying foam and hoping the building falls down orderly.

I'm saying it's not plausible.

It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Yes we would; because you're having it right now.. You believe everything you hear; as long as it's not from the evil government that's trying to turn your mind into a soulless slave of the Illuminati...

Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stab

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The reason people can believe the 9/11 evidence from the side that supports fire taking down WTC7 is because it's backed up by evidence, science and facts.. while the false-flag, blah blah crowd relies on youtube videos and personal accounts

It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Evidence for your claim? How is questioning the 9/11 story not an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into because it's lack of trust for government?

Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more evidence I'll provide and the less you'll actually pay attention to the argument and instead will continue to parrot your belief as the more likely story regardless of any factual evidence and mostly will provide just a bunch of assumptions and conjecture.

More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Since you know so much about federal laws; could you link me to some case law on the subject? Or at least where this law can be found in a law book of some sort?

Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…

Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(c))
The obstruction by destruction of evidence offense found in subsection 1512(c) is the creation of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,71 and proscribes obstruction of federal administrative, judicial, or
congressional proceedings by destruction of evidence.72
More specifically, subsection 1512(c) provides that
I. Whoever
II. corruptly
III. A.1.alters,
2. destroys,
3. mutilates, or
4. conceals
B. 1. a record,
2. document, or
3. other object, or
C. attempts to do so,
D. with the intent to impair the object’s
1. integrity, or
2. availability for use
E. in an official proceeding, or
IV. otherwise
A. 1. obstructs,
2. influences, or
3. impedes
B. an official proceeding, or
C. attempts to do so
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.73
As is generally true of attempts to commit a federal offense, attempt to violate subsection 1512(c)
requires an intent to violate the subsection and a substantial step toward the accomplishment of
that goal.74
As for the necessary nexus between the defendant’s destructive conduct and the obstructed
proceedings: “the defendant’s conduct must ‘have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with
the [official] ... proceedings’; in other words, ‘the endeavor must have the natural and probable
effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.’”75
Like subsection 1512(a) and 1512(b) offenses, subsection 1512(c) offenses are RICO and money
laundering predicate offenses,76 and may provide the foundation for criminal liability as a
principal, accessory after the fact, conspirator, or one guilty of misprision.77 If the federal judicial,
administrative or congressional proceedings are obstructed, prosecution may be had in the United
States even if the destruction occurs overseas,78 the proceedings are yet pending,79 or the offender
is unaware of their federal character.80

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf

I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…

Originally Posted by DeathCell

So there was no investigation done.. hmm I remember the 9/11 Commission.. that would actually count as an investigation..

Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

…and I'm betting the FBI/CIA and other agencies also investigated as well...

The FBI and CIA? You mean those organizations that the 9/11 commission was blaming for being too incompetent to stop the attacks?

Do you have any proof for your claim?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

My thoughts are that you probably don't know how law works but are instead parroting some idea you've heard on the web before....

Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

A trial is based on the concepts of Motive, Opportunity, Evidence. The official story does a lot better of a job providing motive, opportunity and evidence.. than your side does.. Trust me. Your "movement" hasn't actually ever provided a serious motive that is logical or coherent.

Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.

Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

There is proof that the extremists hijacked the planes on 9/11 and crashed it into the towers. You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes?? LOL? The FBI and Law Enforcement never submits all details to the public.

Hijackers Were Not Identified Before 9/11, Investigation Says

Your ball.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Nope I debunked them…

Still working on that part, I take it?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Ahh.. The television, another great source of information......... Let me guess; everything on the History channel is historic!? Ancient aliens here we come.

And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The things you say I allege; I never alleged. I alleged that's where you get your information from; is it not?

The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

There is little doubt that conspiracy theories generate controversy and thus ratings.

No argument, there.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

9/11 Conspiracy theories started on the internet; I've been hearing this same shit for years.

I don’t even know what this means….?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I've proven that you believe things that have no reputable source nor scientific evidence to substantiate said claims.

Of course you did.

All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

If you feel insulted than perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on dubious sources; than you wouldn't feel insulted. The "scientists" matter little compared to the science that has been rejected by peer review. You can call it gold; but it's still a pile of shit.

You are really out of touch. This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in, not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.

I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[29]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[30]
Allegations of bias and suppression
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[31] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[32][33] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[34][35][36] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[37] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[38] Experts have also argued that invited papers are more valuable to scientific research because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[39]

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Yeah; no.

I'll continue to tell people who don't bother to read evidence; to shut up. What's the point of discussing a topic with those who don't bother to educate them on the reality of a situation and instead prefer to live in a fantasy world?

And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I don't call everything I disagree with bullshit; I call 9/11 conspiracy theories that point to our government doing it bullshit. And without evidence; that's what it is.. a steaming pile of bullshit.

I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Please get a handle on yourself, quickly. If you are intelligent and capable of explaining your position, the childish whining over e-feelings is absolutely unnecessary. Neither you or I will be stopped because no one was actually insulted in this thread. I'm not a care-bear and I never will be; if you don't like my tone.. Don't reply.

Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.

What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I'm not gonna sit here and cry about your attitude; but I certainly will continue to cut down your inability to defend your positions.

When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.

You know…peer review and all…

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I'm gonna give you the formal courtesy of letting you know you should mind your own business and tone while discussing things here at DV. As such I'll do the same.

Your tone is my business.

Originally Posted by DeathCell[/quote

I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.

I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)

As for the rest, the forum rules state:

Originally Posted by Forum Rules

Be respectful and tolerant of other users.
Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated and will lead to a warning. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all! (thanks mom.) Obviously we'll use discretion in regards to policing this because joking around between friends is certainly permitted.

And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored. So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you??

Originally Posted by Rainman

I don't think there is anything wrong with inquiry. I there is reasonable cause there to demand further explanation or investigation. To DeathCell, I don't believe that Oneironaut Zero is saying "THIS ALL HAPPENED, IT'S A CONSPIRACY WE'RE ALL SCREWED, THE GOVERNMENT DID IT, IT'S CERTAIN!" I think he is saying something which is completely reasonable and agreeable- "There are enough unknown factors in this incident to merit further official investigation." I don't know why you have such a problem with that. You have a lot of valid points that you're trying to make, but they are stained with personal attack and repetitive talking points which don't really address the majority of the argument which has been presented. For someone who I believe is likely pretty intelligent, it's a disappointing thing to witness such childlike name-calling and internet bashing. It accomplishes only two things- tarnishing what credibility you had in the first place, and simultaneously, it demonstrates an egoic response, triggered by the fear of being wrong. Insulting your opposition only validates the likely mindset that you're uncertain of your argument, and cannot refute the points made objectively without adding your personal flare and attacks, because you don't want to admit to ANY possibility that just PERHAPS, this time, you could be wrong.

Quoted for (obvious) Truth.