1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the plane missed, it could have turned around and tried again?

Or it could've crashed in a field somewhere like Flight 93.

Or, like what happens with flights on a regular basis, its takeoff could've been delayed for some mundane reason. All it would've taken is one person on the flight immediately before to flush something down the toilet that they shouldn't have and the "conspirators" would've been left with their pants down: they'd have had a building rigged with explosives being swarmed over by police and firefighters while their pretext for blowing it up sat on the apron in Newark while the mechanics tried to get the poop valve un-stuck.

It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to create such an intricate plan involving demolition explosives AND airplanes if they absolutely CANNOT allow the true nature of their plot to be discovered.

Well only 7 authors were part of this particular paper, which is for sell. Honestly, I try not to take any consideration from someone selling anything, they are just exploiting a potential market, same holds true for conspiracy theories. Granted, I can only read the abstract of the paper, so I can't really comment too much on it.

Virtually every professional or scientific journal operates this way. If you've got access to a university library or computer lab, you may be able to look at it for free.

Don't know anything ASCE.

It's the oldest and one of the largest professional engineering societies in the United States. They have 147,000 members - the majority of civil engineers in the country belong to ASCE.

They generally try to govern and promote the profession of civil engineering in the USA (and to a certain extent, abroad). They operate committees that advise government on engineering matters, they create standards and guidelines for various aspects of civil engineering that are adopted and referenced by various building codes and standard construction contract specifications, they engage in and fund research into development of new technology, and they publish professional journals and hold conferences to enable knowledge-sharing between civil engineers.

Basically, the ASCE is a highly respected organization focused specifically on civil engineering (including structural engineering) that is known for its technical expertise and promotion of professional ethics.

 

[dust1n]

Or it could've crashed in a field somewhere like Flight 93.

Well, seeing how we don't know what building Flight 93 was aiming to hit, we can't really investigate to what it was supposed to hit, now could we? Meaning, how is this relevant to anything, if the plane didn't hit the building, it would somewhere else, so then no one would have investigated any building that didn't get hit by a plane to check for explosives...

Or, like what happens with flights on a regular basis, its takeoff could've been delayed for some mundane reason. All it would've taken is one person on the flight immediately before to flush something down the toilet that they shouldn't have and the "conspirators" would've been left with their pants down: they'd have had a building rigged with explosives being swarmed over by police and firefighters while their pretext for blowing it up sat on the apron in Newark while the mechanics tried to get the poop valve un-stuck.

If it's take off was delayed, than the conspirators or the terrorists (both group names can replace one another, btw) would not have gotten caught, the building that didn't get hit would not have gotten checked for explosives and would not have been demolished.

It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to create such an intricate plan involving demolition explosives AND airplanes if they absolutely CANNOT allow the true nature of their plot to be discovered.

In a plutocracy, any corporation would be willing to sacrifice a few humans for a few bucks, and any huge corporations that would or have benefited heavily from a nation in war, and have a history in every war doing so (banks, insurance companies, weapons manufacturers, armor manufacturers, companies that make vehicles and tanks, corporations that have contracts for 20 $450,000 stealth bombers, infrastructure companies like Halliburton, chemical companies, as well as governmental war time agencies getting higher budgets like the CIA, FBI, etc.) would be willing to do so if they could get away with it. They have consistently be successful in the past, they never lose power. And the defense budget has been consistently going up since... basically always. We have a war economy. They have influenced government for a couple centuries. These corporations/agencies have successfully deceive the people

Virtually every professional or scientific journal operates this way. If you've got access to a university library or computer lab, you may be able to look at it for free.


It's the oldest and one of the largest professional engineering societies in the United States. They have 147,000 members - the majority of civil engineers in the country belong to ASCE.

They generally try to govern and promote the profession of civil engineering in the USA (and to a certain extent, abroad). They operate committees that advise government on engineering matters, they create standards and guidelines for various aspects of civil engineering that are adopted and referenced by various building codes and standard construction contract specifications, they engage in and fund research into development of new technology, and they publish professional journals and hold conferences to enable knowledge-sharing between civil engineers.

Basically, the ASCE is a highly respected organization focused specifically on civil engineering (including structural engineering) that is known for its technical expertise and promotion of professional ethics.

I'm not using this as an argument, but if there was group of engineers that didn't benefit heavily for the lack of progression of the human race, it would be the most likely the most centralized American group of engineers in which all highest paid engineers are in.

Honestly, I was enjoying your conversation with Ba'al a lot more.

 

[Galileo]

This is the post I WAS replying to.

Your arguments are speculations (and not bad speculations are all), but they aren't proof of anything. And you are only replying to about 3 of the points Zeitgeist brings up, not all of them.

What did you think about part 1 and part 3?

I will admit I was on a bit of a rant when I made that post. So no, I don't have much proof to back up my claims. However, the real point I'm driving at is that when it comes to accusing a government of killing three thousand of its own citizens, that is not an accusation to be taken lightly. I was mainly just trying stimulate some thought processes to get people to think for themselves rather than just accepting whatever they hear or read on conspiracy theory websites because those are a dime a dozen.

As for Zeitgeist I completely agree with part 1, Christianity is a total rip off of much older religions. Nobody has ever provided a scrap of archaeological evidence to suggest that the man known as "Jesus Christ" ever existed, and he is the man Christianity is based on. So if he never existed than the entire Christian ideology is completely debunked.
Moving on to part 3, the topics discussed in this section were more plausible than that of 9/11. I do think the government does some diabolic things, which I have stated before in previous posts, I just find it hard to believe that they would outright kill three thousand of their own citizens. However, teaming up with major corporations and banks to essentially commit the biggest money laundering scheme in history is probably not beyond them.

 

[Sunstone]

Cynical hawkish propaganda. That's all this is.

It is not "cynical hawkish propaganda". I'm just interpolating from what my mother told me was the reason Humpty-Dumpty fell off the wall and had a great fall: Gravity, she said.

I still want my engineering degree.

 

[dust1n]

I will admit I was on a bit of a rant when I made that post. So no, I don't have much proof to back up my claims. However, the real point I'm driving at is that when it comes to accusing a government of killing three thousand of its own citizens, that is not an accusation to be taken lightly. I was mainly just trying stimulate some thought processes to get people to think for themselves rather than just accepting whatever they hear or read on conspiracy theory websites because those are a dime a dozen.

And the government accusing Al Qaeda (which we have been no provided actual evidence for), and then using it was a context to start an almost 9 year war, overthrowing the countries governments and building one Western friendly, while sucking out any wealth America had left to do so should be take more lightly than suggest the government killed 3k of it's own citizens?

However, teaming up with major corporations and banks to essentially commit the biggest money laundering scheme in history is probably not beyond them.

 

[ericoh2]

Basically, the ASCE is a highly respected organization focused specifically on civil engineering (including structural engineering) that is known for its technical expertise and promotion of professional ethics.

I'm not seeing the ethics part in this article. Here are a few excerpts.

--Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings.

--He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team."

--Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, was among the first to question the society's involvement. He was on a team funded by the National Science Foundation to study the New Orleans flood."


--Seed accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."

Engineers society accused of disaster probe cover-ups | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

[Troublemane]

I still wanna hear the proof that the government created hurricane Katrina. I know its out there.

 

[dust1n]

I still wanna hear the proof that the government created hurricane Katrina. I know its out there.

Thanks for the irrelevant remark.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There hasn't been clear, objective and rational responses and explanations that prove all the questions that have been asked.

Indeed, and I'm sure all the clear, objective, and rational evidence in the world won't change your mind about that. Then again, this was my only point all along.

 

[dust1n]

Indeed, and I'm sure all the clear, objective, and rational evidence in the world won't change your mind about that. Then again, this was my only point all along.

Well your point is partially unfounded, because not all answers provided by the United States government have been accompanied by clear, objective, and rational evidence.

Tell ya what, why don't you just leave the dirty work to 9/10th's who responding a somewhat good case?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not seeing the ethics part in this article.

Here:

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Here are a few excerpts.

--Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings.

And? The article doesn't say what his issue is with the ASCE's modelling, or how the assumptions built into his model differ from those of the ASCE's.

Academics can have legitimate disagreements - I'd be interested to hear what issues he has with the ASCE's findings. Meanwhile, though, the ASCE's study passed peer review and substantially agrees with the findings of the NIST study. I've tried searching, and I can't find any mention online of any journal articles or the like by Dr. Astaneh-Asl on the WTC collapse at all. His web page mentions a few seminars that he's given on the topic, but nothing that looks like it would've been peer-reviewed.

--He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team."

Why did you leave out the very next line that explains why they did this?

"Gene Corley, a forensics expert and team leader on the society's report, said employing people with ties to the original builders was necessary because they had access to information that was difficult to get any other way.

Corley said the society's study was peer-reviewed and its credibility was upheld by follow-up studies, including one by the National Institute of Standards and Technology."

--Raymond Seed, a levee expert at the University of California, Berkeley, was among the first to question the society's involvement. He was on a team funded by the National Science Foundation to study the New Orleans flood."

--Seed accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."

Engineers society accused of disaster probe cover-ups | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Dr. Seed's issue with the Society's Katrina study was what he saw as an overly close relationship between the ASCE and the Corps of Engineers. I can understand the concern that this sort of relationship might affect the assignment of blame in the ASCE's report on the flooding of New Orleans. Exactly how do you think such a relationship would have affected their WTC collapse study?

Edit: I think it's also worth pointing out that Dr. Seed is currently a member of the ASCE and still serves on one of their committees: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~seed/cv.html

Edit 2: I also think the author of the article misrepresented things somewhat:

In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens of thousands of people to flee. But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.
[...]

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

The two quotes are speaking to two different issues: regardless of whether Dr. Astaneh-Asl is correct about whether a traditional skyscraper would normally survive this kind of impact, the ASCE report is correct when it says that aircraft impacts aren't explicitly considered in the building design process.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well your point is partially unfounded, because not all answers provided by the United States government have been accompanied by clear, objective, and rational evidence.

Tell ya what, why don't you just leave the dirty work to 9/10th's who responding a somewhat good case?

Well, for one, 9/10th's and I aren't even having the same conversation. And, secondly, it doesn't need to be left to 9/10th's to argue the details, as these details have already been addressed by experts, and their debunkings of the various 9/11 conspiracy issues are widely available for anyone who is interested enough in the facts to find them.

Of course, you are free to keep pretending as though the 9/11 conspiracy topics being discussed here haven't already been thoroughly addressed by professionals and experts far more knowledgable in the relevant fields than anyone here.

 

[ericoh2]

Here:

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)


My response: Here's one that congress put together for themselves. How accurate do you think something like this is to determine how those who put it together actually follow it's principles?

Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service


Why did you leave out the very next line that explains why they did this?

My response: I posted the link intending for those interested to read it. The excerpts were just to highlight a few points from it.

Dr. Seed's issue with the Society's Katrina study was what he saw as an overly close relationship between the ASCE and the Corps of Engineers. I can understand the concern that this sort of relationship might affect the assignment of blame in the ASCE's report on the flooding of New Orleans. Exactly how do you think such a relationship would have affected their WTC collapse study?

My response: This says that the ASCE was funded by the US government to investigate 9/11, who are suspected by theorists, to have played a role in the cover-up. So what if they were directly told to find out how the PLANES brought down the towers and how a FIRE CAUSED BY THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSING brought down building 7? Do you not see an issue with that?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14519



Sorry I don't really know how to multi quote so some of my responses are actually in the quote part. Could you show me how so I can make it a little easier to read next time . Anyway the main point for me posting this was that there are some questions raised about the ethics of the ASCE. I do not know much about these guys but some have raised concerns.

 

[ericoh2]

Scientists find nano-thermite in the dust of World Trade Center debris after an 18 month scientific study. Do those who accept the official story dismiss this as a lie and fabrication or do you just believe that they are mistaken?


[youtube]8_tf25lx_3o[/youtube]
YouTube - A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )

Bentham Science Publishers

I'm just curious, what is your take on this Penguin?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's one that congress put together for themselves. How much merit do you think something like this has?

Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service

At this point, it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I said that the ASCE promotes professional ethics. You apparently disagreed. I provided a link to a summary of the programs they've implemented to promote professional ethics.

I posted the link intending for those interested to to read it. The excerpts were just to highlight a few points from it.

Yes, but quoting the way you did changed the tone of the text. What was presented in the article as a question followed by its answer was presented by you as a question, apparently unanswered.

I thought I read that they are directly paid for and funded and by the US government who are the very people that many conspiracy believers suspect were behind the whole thing.

The vast majority of the ASCE's budget comes from membership dues, publication sales and conferences. According to the most recent financial statement on their web site, only about 1.5% of their operating revenue (less than $1 million per year) comes from research, grants and contracts, and likely not all of this would be with government.

So what if they were directly told to find out how the planes brought down the towers and how a fire brought down building 7? Do you not see an issue with that?

If this actually happened, then it would be of great concern, yes. However, since their study went into great detail about the causes of the collapse of the buildings, since their study passed peer review, and since other independent studies have come to the same conclusions, I discount the possibility.

Sorry I don't really know how to multi quote so some of my responses are actually in the quote part. Could you teach me how so I can make it a little easier to read next time .

Just put quote tags around the other person's blocks of text like this (though without the spaces):

[ quote ]Other person's text![ /quote ]

My text!

[ quote ]More other person's text![ /quote ]

It'll look like this:

Other person's text!

My text!

More other person's text!

If you want to get extra-fancy, instead of using a plain quote tag at the beginning of each block, copy the first auto-generated quote tag in the reply (for instance this, only without the spaces: [ quote=ericoh2;1900290 ]) and use that instead of [ quote ].

Anyway the main point for me posting this was that there are some questions raised about the ethics of the ASCE. I do not know much about these guys but some have raised concerns.

I share some of the concerns on the Katrina study. Not on their conclusions about the scientific facts of the matter, but their apparent reluctance to assign fault and blame to the ACE. I haven't seen a basis for concern on the WTC study. However, like any scientific study, the proof is in the pudding: if you're worried about the quality of the work, look at the work. Try to replicate the results. In this case, I think any ethical concerns are unfounded, the work has been examined and agreed to by other experts in the respective fields, and the study conclusions have been replicated by other researchers working independently.

 

[ericoh2]

At this point, it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I said that the ASCE promotes professional ethics. You apparently disagreed. I provided a link to a summary of the programs they've implemented to promote professional ethics

I assure you I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I was just saying that a statement of ethics seems to have little value in gauging the members actual activities.

Yes, but quoting the way you did changed the tone of the text. What was presented in the article as a question followed by its answer was presented by you as a question, apparently unanswered.

It may have come across that way, but I had no intentions of doing so. I was just highlighting a few points.

The vast majority of the ASCE's budget comes from membership dues, publication sales and conferences. According to the most recent financial statement on their web site, only about 1.5% of their operating revenue (less than $1 million per year) comes from research, grants and contracts, and likely not all of this would be with government.

But in the case of the WTC it was totally, or at least mostly, funded by the government right?

Engineer Society Accused of Cover-Ups | 911Blogger.com

If this actually happened, then it would be of great concern, yes. However, since their study went into great detail about the causes of the collapse of the buildings, since their study passed peer review, and since other independent studies have come to the same conclusions, I discount the possibility.

But equally qualified and far as I know people with no apparent agenda other than finding the truth have found flaws in the official conclusions.

Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andProbabilityTheory17Legge.pdf

Bentham Science Publishers

Just put quote tags around the other person's blocks of text like this (though without the spaces)

Thanks, I hope I got it right .

 

[Dware]

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire I stoped reading there. Nothing serious comes out of San Francisco, its a city of nut jobs. People that believe this garbage are psychotic

 

[Ba'al]

It really doesn't matter how many credible witnesses, scientists, engineers, architects, or independent investigators state publicly of what happened...if you're a skeptic, your a skeptic, and nothing will change your mind. What's the point of even discussing it?

 

[dust1n]

Well, for one, 9/10th's and I aren't even having the same conversation. And, secondly, it doesn't need to be left to 9/10th's to argue the details, as these details have already been addressed by experts, and their debunkings of the various 9/11 conspiracy issues are widely available for anyone who is interested enough in the facts to find them.

Of course, you are free to keep pretending as though the 9/11 conspiracy topics being discussed here haven't already been thoroughly addressed by professionals and experts far more knowledgable in the relevant fields than anyone here.

Please cite sufficient references so I can look these up in, since all debunking's are so crystal clear and explain everything.

 

[Snowber]

Great! Hopefully after the investigation is all done all those people like Glenn Beck wont just mock the "911 Conspiracy Theorists" saying they are just crazy conspiracy people.