9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

So Lick my old mate, so you’re talking to be again after that catastrophe your catastrophe theory seemed to meet? (Sorry just joshing)

**

So where did the bit about “fundamentalist religion” quote come from -

“You say that “all you wanna do is prove me wrong” well yes on many things I think you are wrong. I’m sure that many people think my views are wrong, but I think them right and am willing to defend them. That is what debate is, an idea is presented and those that think it wrong ask questions and put forward criticisms, the person that presented the idea then answers the questions and rebuts the criticisms. If an idea then stands up to scrutiny it is probably a good idea and if it doesn’t then it is probably bad.

But you (and others) seem to believe that even if an idea doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny it is still a very good idea.

Why?

Because you have faith in the idea being good.

The problem is that that is not politics it is religion and a fundamentalist religion at that.

And to me that can be dangerous because people that don’t accept that their ideas might be wrong even when they seem irrational and unreasonable have a habit if they have power of stamping on those that think differently.”

**

OK so I was comment on their seeming inability to defend their ideas and viewpoint.

So what have I been asking Angel to defend recently?

(Angel)“I think we can change things but not by voting democrat”

Do you mean that just voting Democrat will not change things (since you didn’t mention any other party) or do you mean that voting in general doesn’t change anything?

Are you suggesting change by some other non-democratic process?

STATUS – UNANSWERED

So Lick is this about the supposed 9/11coverup?

**

(ANGEL) “if we ever want to make an actual positive change in this country we need to all be on the same side, united against the perpetrators of 9/11 and all these wars and this police state”

And to do what?

Do we rise up overthrow the Bush regime and install an unelected government, so that it can do what?

Or are we to join together in electing for one political party, if so which one and what are the policies they will have?

STATUS – UNANSWERED

Well 9/11 is mentioned but only in passing the statement and question are both about future change and how we achieved it.

**

For example one of the things you (angel) want us to unite behind is freedom of speech (I would guarantee Freedom of speech”)

But I pointed out that in the capitalistic and free market based world that you support, media outlets are very likely to be owned by rich individuals and corporations. In such an environment these groups would dominate what is seen as ‘the news’ and manipulate people’s viewpoints in much the same way as they do now.

To this you replied – “of course it's hard to mainstain free speech in capitalism, because it's hard to maintain free speech in ANY system, theres always people who want to hijack WHATEVER system there is and make it benefit them and destroy the masses”

So you want us to unite over a policy you don’t have any faith in and believe will fail?

STATUS – UNANSWERED

Nothing on the supposed 9/11coverup.

**

(Angel) “I wouldn’t let corporate lobbyists involve themselves in any way in congress and do my best to keep corporations out of government"

How? I mean in a capitalistic and free market based system (that Angel says he supports), money is still the means to gain power and so such corporations would still have the ability to manipulate the system.

STATUS – UNANSWERED

Well who’d have guessed it, nothing on the supposed 9/11coverup, again.

**

“I would not allow any secret societies or secret groups to be involved in any level of the government”.

The problem with this is that it could very easily turn into a witch-hunt, I mean how do you find out how is supposed to be in these ‘secret societies’? What level of proof will be needed is due process to apply? Rat has accused many people of being part of ‘the conspiracy’ but he hasn’t ‘proof’ only innuendo, supposition and opinion, that was all that was needed for McCarthy? Are people to loose their jobs or freedom based on suspect information?

STATUS – UNANSWERED

Cor blimy, look at that, not a mention of the supposed 9/11coverup yet again

**

(angel) “more conservative free market economies have been succsefful than more liberal socialistic ones in the past”

This is an opinion and one I disagree with, do you care to try and defend it?

STATUS – UNDEFENDED

What do you mean by a free market?

By what means do you gauge success?

What is “more” conservative?

What is you definition of liberal and socialist?

STATUS – UNANSWERED

OH DEAR Lick once more nothing to do with 9/11.

**

So lick?

Do you want me to tell you all the questions that have nothing to do with 9/11 let alone the supposed 9/11 cover up that I’ve asked Rat to defend and he has been unable to?

**

 

This is a politics forum, a place to discuss politics.

I’ve always been more interested in the politics of the conspiracy theorists than I have been their conspiracies.

Not for the first time I’ll say for the sake of argument let us imagine there was (or is) some conspiracy or other, what then?

The thing is that the strangest thing happens

When you start asking questions about these peoples political views they seem to clam up, OH they can talk or paste stuff in the bucket load on this conspiracy or that, but ask them to explain and defend the way they would run the economy or how they would deal with the secret societies they see everywhere, and suddenly they dry up.

Why?

It’s not as if they then decide to find out why their ideas don’t stand up, they just run away.

Why?

Maybe it is because they have faith in the idea being good, even if it doesn’t seem to be able to stand up to scrutiny.

The problem is that is not politics, it is religion and a seemingly fundamentalist religion at that.

 

OK lick lets go back to a couple of posts that you have been dodging again they haven’t anything directly to do with the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. But about methods and goals.

**

So Lick, we come to the one thing you don’t even try to explain.

You tell people that there is no point voting (undisputed)

That change is virtually impossible to achieve, (reaffirmed)

That the only way it will ever come is if a possible ‘collapse’ happens (reaffirmed) and that out of that just maybe there could arise a possible ‘progressive’ system (reaffirmed)

So

Why don’t you think these views just plays right into the hands of the rich elite, who if unopposed can accumulate more wealth and power?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2171616#post2171616

Asked on February 2nd
**


But Lick

“If anything the elite are demonstrating that there is no upward limit to their grasping lust for power and wealth consolidation”. But “whilst I, you and any number of individuals may strive in limited scope to realise some incremental changes in one's immediate environment, overall these changes cannot reform what is inherently, institutionally corrupt. You can't patch a rotten tooth and expect an infection not to spread beneath.”

So while the rich get power and wealth, we can do little and it will not help anyway? Really why should we bother?

Not exactly a rousing call to oppose then getting this extra power is it?

**

I said - So the only way out is if a ‘collapse’ comes and the suffering and death it would cause brings about a revolution, and that that revolution will then bring about a progressive system

And you reply – “Again repeating the same false reading that has been answered repeatedly. Not WILL, MAY. Just as it could lead to an even greater tyranny and despotism”

But your reply is actually what I’ve been saying, your strategy seems based on nothing more than irrational wishful thinking. -“But maybe a large economic collapse will happen and maybe a revolution does follow, there still is no way to predict what way events might travel. It could just as likely to bring about an authoritarian dictatorship as an enlightened progressive state.
I don’t think hoping for suffering and death and wishful thinking about a glorious revolution is a sound or rational policy.”

Aren’t you just paraphrasing what I’ve just said (any closer and it would be plagiarism) and then claiming it is yours and that it is me that got you views wrong?

**

So let me get this straight

I say – To me it seems foolhardy in the extreme to tell people that really these things (opposing the elite) are just not that worth it and that the ONLY hope is some possible ‘collapse’.

You reply – “Again false. Your idea of discussion is clearly dependent on lies and selective readings of others' posts. That is now perfectly clear”.

Yet you then say – “I have in fact stated that full systemic change would be achievable only if the present order collapses”

So in other words opposing the elite isn’t worth it because only a collapse of the present order is going to bring any type of meaningful change.

But even then such a collapse and the revolution you hope comes out of it may just lead to even greater despotism?
__________________
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2185066#post2185066
February 8th

**

 

Balbus wow you really must not have any time on your hands bro...

 

Whoa!

good point....

 

agreed.

 

Whether you believe along the same lines as the Truth movement or not, you have to admit, it is gaining momentum.

 

The thing is that debate is about testing viewpoints it is not just about presenting them.

If you only want to talk to like minded people and have like minded people make comments on your ideas, then it is unlikely your ideas will be tested.

To complain that you are not going to debate because someone disagree with your viewpoint is to miss the whole point of the concept of debate and even rational thought.

If you don’t want your views questioned why come to a place where question are very likely to be asked, and isn’t it impolite to post things you know will be questioned when you already know you will not answer?

**

I think some ideas are wrong and I make my case against them.

If the person who presented the argument is unable to defend it, it’s not my fault, the fault most likely is with the undefendable argument.

The real problem is that many people here seem to think that undefendable arguments are still ‘good’ arguments.

This is why I say that some treat their political views are if they were religious dogma, having faith in ideas that just don’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s like Darwinism vs Creationism.

**

I’m a left winger I do not try to hide that, I wish to lessen the power of the few and increase the power of the people. My aim is to improve the quality of life of everyone and I’m open and honest about the type of policies I support in trying to bring that about.

The problem is that several people on the forum claim loudly that they are against the rich elite but when I have examined the type of policies they seem to champion it is clear to me that those policies would most likely increase the power of the rich elite.

Why?

Others lend their voice of support but are extremely reluctant to talk about their own views and will not enter into any open and honest debate.

Why?

Those questions make me curious and I’ve been trying to find out the answers.

As I’ve said one possibility is that they ‘religiously’ believe their view are right however undefendable they are, but there are other possibilities. They could actually know their views are undefendable, but then the question is why come on to sites like this, have they another agenda?

As I’ve said to Rat, if a viewpoint is presented but the presenter is unwilling to debate it in any open and honest way then it just seems like spam, it’s like those con-artists that send out lots of emails in the hope someone gullible will believe one of them without question.

**

 

Balbus - you are such a disingenuous person that most people find it to be a waste of time arguing with you. People have explained to you everything you've asked them to the best of their ability. Either you're just stupid, or you're trying to use whatever methods you can to weasel yourself out of any real debate while projecting on to others.

For instance:

So have YOU explained how Left wing politics lessen the power of the few and increase the power of the people? Since you claim I cannot back my claims up -- which I have done numerous times -- maybe YOU could actually explain your stance on what YOU believe (which you have never done).

It would seem that you're projecting your own flaws on to others, and it is YOU who seems to have the problem answering questions and explaining yourself -- not me, Lick, or Angel.

 

I think Balbus literally just spends his whole day writing LONG, Drawn out worthless threats...

 

Structural and civil engineering research


While the above individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. [57] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse. [58].

The following are a few examples of the structural engineering research done on the collapse:

*According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.

*Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down. [59][60]

*Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure. [61]

*Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[62]

*Although some note that there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [19] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 in would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[63]

*Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. [64]

*Robertson notes, “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.

Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.

LINK

 

People need to realize when you work as a structural engineer, physicist, whatever it may be, you WILL HAVE YOUR FEDERAL FUNDS CUT IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE WTC DEMOLITION, that is why so many structural engineers and physicists said in the days and weeks after 911 that their must have been bombs in the buildings, but soon turned their ideas around after being threatened with having their funds pulled.

 

A very accurate and poignant fact that the bandwagoneers choose to overlook in their desperate need to defer to any "authority". Post facto opportunist collusion is a concept they are incapable of fathoming let alone bothering to investigate as meticulously as have the 911Truth researchers.

Dr. Thomas Eager's laughable betrayal of all historically precedented structural behavioral norms in his "zipper" and "pancake" fantasy scenarios alone earned him considerable personal elevation by this criminal administration whilst protecting MIT's considerable federal/corporate research grants from reevaluation.

Until the naysayers bother to do more than regurgitate the surface PR and actually examine the volumes of evidence of exposed inconsistencies and physical impossibilities of the "official" conspiracy theory, they present no debate whatsoever to demonstrate any legitimate intellectual enquiry on the matter.

 

Angel_Headed_Hipster,

You don't think this is a legitimate point? Why wasn't all the demolition materials that would've been needed to bring down buildings as huge as the World Trade Centers not noticed by all those who work there and near there?

 

That's called appeal to force, you're suggesting that because some engineers were pressured into holding a certain position, the position is wrong.

It's not an argument that supports your position. And who are these engineers and physicists who have changed their positions? Could they have changed their positions because of evidence that came out?

Why aren't more privatly contracted engineers talking about this? Many physicists are publicly funded, but most engineers are privately contracted.

 

You just said if a source doesn't conform to your viewpoint, then it doesn't have any merit. That's a convoluted way to look at the world Lick.

I suppose denying any source that would disagree with your position is a good way to have a bullet proof case, but it's inconsistent with a 'legitimate intellectual enquiry.'

 

First of all, there was a series of power downs in the towers in the weeks leading up to the attacks, where large sections of the buildings were closed off. All power was shut off to these areas, including the surveillence cameras.

Secondly, the controlled demolition of the towers was not a classic controlled demolition as was the case with WTC-7. It is likely that conventional explosives weren't used and the placement of the explosives was different from most controlled demolitions.

BYU physics professor, Steven Jones, addressed this issue at the 9/11 Truth Symposium that was aired on C-SPAN.

 

I said nothing of the sort, you merely read into my words that which you wished to again cover for your own obvious lack of considered and objective review of the volumes of 911 evidence.

What I DO mean is that deference to authority as an alternate to the application of sound critical rationality (as is the case with the bandwagon deference to any report bearing the badge of some PhD from some known institute without bothering to examine the financial motivations and political ties that otherwise expose such post-facto collusionists as Thomas Eager and others from Federally-funded institutes) offers nothing of value to the public discourse.

All the PhD's in the world can claim hydrocarbon fires and assymetric damage to one small portion of a 100+ floored building can bring it down and it wont make it any more plausible with respect to all historic precedents of steel construction nor all the more so in light of documented admission by subsequently (and tellingly) fired UL steel expert Kevin Ryan whose affidavit I have provided some time back.

Fact is the WTC could not and did not collapse symmetrically from clear asymmetric impact and minor controllable/smoldering pocket fires on a few upper floors. Global collapse cannot be so easily and convincingly dismissed by the conspiratorial theories of opportunists and intellectual and moral cowards. Especially given the vast amount of information each of these collusionist reports fails to acknowledge concerning the structural strength designed into the towers.

I suggest you go inform yourself on the deocumented strength of the structural steel used in the towers which were tested to much higher temperatures than could have possibly been generated by a diversionary plane impact and mere minutes of actual fuel-fed conflagration. The black smoke obsrvable throughout the period prior to the collapses is clear indication (by even the most basic science) of slow oxygen-starved smoldering, not raging infernos.

Obviously even the most observably verifiable logic cannot penetrate the mass media induced denials of reality when it comes to this heinous criminal act. The repercussions of recognising the extent of the treason yet presiding glibly over the nation are too great for the majority yet to bear, for it would demand a level of civic action and future civic vigilance on our own leaders and system itself which most of our self-absorbed mentally complacent public are unwilling to assume.

This has nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with actual thorough examination of the evidence of insider orchestration and subsequent politically-enforced, media-assisted coverup. To make it personal is nothing more than a standard dodge from that objective and substantiated fact.

 

You did say any official source which "regurgitates surface PR" doesn't "demonstrate any legitimate intellectual enquiry on the matter." Which sounds to me like you're saying any official source or other source (which you've claimed to be paid off or pandering to official sources) is illegitimate.

Feel free to correct me if I've edited you wrongly, but the message I get is your perception on souces that don't conform to your 'sound critical rationality' are without merit.

It's fine if you don't want to make it 'personal' but then you should avoid hostile speak such as 'you should educate yourself'. It's condescending and doesn't help either of our points of view.

I never claimed the trade center collapsedsymmetrically, and asymmetric collapse would not be indicative of controlled demolition. That does not mean most of the mass of the building would not fall into its own footprint.

Large parts of the building not initally consumed by the burning inferno would be smoldering. Slow combustion does not happen evenly over a source, and to suggest otherwise as evidence as a conspiracy is absurd.

Industrial steel is much stronger and harder then Iron, but it is also more malleable. It deforms more under stress, of intense heat, and steel loses half it's integrity over 1100 F.

To say a steel rise building collapse from fire is unprecedented, is missing the point that an airliner crash into a tall steel rise building is also unprecedented.

 

More confusing claims being made. This is typical of conspiracy arguments. Something is claimed to have happened in a way that is supposedly impossible; therefore, the government blew up the towers.

No one has claimed the collapses were completely symmetric. If you watch the videos, you will see that the towers didn't go straight down initially. Both tilted at the start of collapse. The south tower tipped to the east and south. The north tower tipped to the south at the start of the collapse.

If you look at the way the towers were constructed, the long-span floors (the ones that spanned 60 feet) were on the east side of the south tower and the south side of the north tower. Both towers tipped toward the side of the long-span floors. This is what would be expected since the long-span floors were more susceptible to sagging at high temperature due to their length. The sagging also pulls perimeter and core columns inward and reduces their buckling strength.

Note that the east wall of the south tower buckled inward during the fires about 4 feet nearly all the way across its width. The strength of those bent columns was a small fraction of what it was when they were straight. That's also where the collapse initiated. No surprise. No controlled demolition.

.