ASCE Journals Dishonest & Misleading Concerning the Destruction of WTC Towers

Bob0627 · Sep 15, 2014

From a blog:

As shown in an earlier post by Richard Johns, there is a new letter on the Journal of 911 Studies which describes dishonest and unethical behavior by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and its parent organization, the ASCE Journals and their Board of Governors, regarding their refusal to correct a clearly dishonest and fraudulent paper they published concerning the collapse of the WTC Towers in January 2011.

The letter can be found here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

This stonewalling behavior is similar to that observed of the NIST Director when confronted earlier this year with evidence that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features from its analysis which would have made impossible the collapse initiation hypothesis presented in the report. See the December 2013 letter by attorney William Pepper to the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General on this issue here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Unfortunately, it seems clear that the previously respected institutions of NIST and the ASCE Journals are involved in a cover-up to prevent the truth of what actually occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 from being revealed. This cover-up is obviously intended to prevent a real investigation, which would take seriously the statements made by firefighters and others about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings before and during the collapses, and would investigate those who had access to the interiors of those buildings, such as contractors, maintenance workers, etc. to determine how charges could have been planted and to test the steel for evidence of explosive residue. Neither of these things were ever done by any official investigation to date.

Whatever one thinks of the current situation in Iraq, with ISIS, one should remember that had Iraq not been invaded, and its government replaced and army disbanded by the Bush administration, there would be no ISIS. It is known that the Bush administration used fraudulent means to justify its invasion of Iraq and this was only possible with the fear generated by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and most prominently what happened in NYC on that day. It is thus imperative to find out just who was involved in those events, since science has shown that the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete failures and collapses of the three high rise buildings in NYC on that day.

=============================================================================================================================================================================

Just like Popular Mechanics and a host of other media entities (i.e. all major US networks, the BBC, the History Channel, National Geographic, Scientific American, etc.) , ASCE Journals are complicit in publishing disinformation or in their silence, to protect the official narrative. It's very difficult for any organization to buck the US government. The stakes are enormous and the US agenda since 9/11 is highly dependent on keeping the 9/11 myth alive. Little by little though, there are cracks opening (see the effort to declassify 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report) and then there are the relentless efforts to expose events the MSM hides from the public (see the destruction of WTC7 via large highly visible ads in NYC and elsewhere).

ozeco41 · Sep 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
From a blog:

As shown in an earlier post by Richard Johns, there is a new letter on the Journal of 911 Studies which describes dishonest and unethical behavior by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and its parent organization, the ASCE Journals and their Board of Governors, regarding their refusal to correct a clearly dishonest and fraudulent paper they published concerning the collapse of the WTC Towers in January 2011.

The letter can be found here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

There are at least two issues of potential interest here which are:
1) The technical basis of the complaint by Szamboti and Johns. Essentially Szamboti et al are claiming that Bazant et al are wrong in a specific paper which was a response to earlier written/published work by Szamboti (And D Chandler). It is part of an ongoing series of disagreements between Szamboti and Bazant each supported by a changing cast of associates over the several years the fiasco has been running.

I suggest that the main point relevant here is that BOTH Bazant and Szamboti are wrong on foundation assumptions underpinning their argument. So whether Szamboti is right OR wrong vis-a-vis Bazant the conclusions are false anyway. Therefore neither "side" proves anything of valid relevance to 9/11 affairs outside of their ongoing dispute. I have summarised the technical issues several times and, if anyone is interested in reasoned honest discussion, I can post a summary overview followed, if discussion progresses, with full argument to support my claim(s).

2) The allegations of ethical misconduct by JEM
This presents an interesting challenge to identify the ethical issue. We have Szamboti and Johns making claims which lead to the claim that JEM published and will not correct a "dishonest and fraudulent paper". But the protest is equally a "dishonest and fraudulent paper" - it is built on the same false foundation. I'll leave it for the ethics experts to discuss that one. :roll: (yes I could but it would inevitably be a waste of effort on this forum IMO unless the technical untruths are resolved first.

Bob0627 said:
This stonewalling behavior is similar to that observed of the NIST Director when confronted earlier this year with evidence that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features from its analysis which would have made impossible the collapse initiation hypothesis presented in the report. See the December 2013 letter by attorney William Pepper to the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General on this issue here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

This one is simpler. It is a single sided - "unidirectional" - claim essentially one framed by Szamboti,. It alleges errors in the analysis of WTC7 collapse. Bottom line is that Szamboti's claims have been addressed in detail across numerous forums. His claim is simply not made out. It has been shown to be wrong in details (by numerous technical persons) and unproven at the overall level (by me and a few others). I see no point in pursuing discussion of the technical validity (invalidity actually) of the Szamboti source claim unless someone wants to support those claims. Until that stage there is nothing to discuss here on this forum within the technical scope of the Szamboti/Pepper claim.

The political tactics of the AE911 initiative of using the Szamboti claim as the core of the Pepper letter is a separate issue. I'll wait to see if anyone wants to discuss it.

The reminder is political hyperbole - which goes nowhere until and unless the relevant technical claims are supported and accepted.

Bob0627 said:
Unfortunately, it seems clear that the previously respected institutions of NIST and the ASCE Journals are involved in a cover-up to prevent the truth of what actually occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 from being revealed. This cover-up is obviously intended to prevent a real investigation, which would take seriously the statements made by firefighters and others about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings before and during the collapses, and would investigate those who had access to the interiors of those buildings, such as contractors, maintenance workers, etc. to determine how charges could have been planted and to test the steel for evidence of explosive residue. Neither of these things were ever done by any official investigation to date.

Whatever one thinks of the current situation in Iraq, with ISIS, one should remember that had Iraq not been invaded, and its government replaced and army disbanded by the Bush administration, there would be no ISIS. It is known that the Bush administration used fraudulent means to justify its invasion of Iraq and this was only possible with the fear generated by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and most prominently what happened in NYC on that day. It is thus imperative to find out just who was involved in those events, since science has shown that the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete failures and collapses of the three high rise buildings in NYC on that day.

=============================================================================================================================================================================

Just like Popular Mechanics and a host of other media entities (i.e. all major US networks, the BBC, the History Channel, National Geographic, Scientific American, etc.) , ASCE Journals are complicit in publishing disinformation or in their silence, to protect the official narrative. It's very difficult for any organization to buck the US government. The stakes are enormous and the US agenda since 9/11 is highly dependent on keeping the 9/11 myth alive. Little by little though, there are cracks opening (see the effort to declassify 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission Report) and then there are the relentless efforts to expose events the MSM hides from the public (see the destruction of WTC7 via large highly visible ads in NYC and elsewhere).

Since Bob does not indicate what he is quoting OR distinguish what he is claiming there is no point speculation on a claim that has not been made - by Bob.

Do you want discussion or not Bob?

If you do what do you want discussed?

KokomoJojo · Sep 16, 2014

"it is built on the same false foundation."

I almost gave your post a like because for a change I actually agree with 'most' of it.

The only problem however is you did not extend your summary far enough to include your own theories.

On second thought there is enough in there to give you a like.

KokomoJojo · Sep 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
Unfortunately, it seems clear that the previously respected institutions of NIST and the ASCE Journals are involved in a cover-up to prevent the truth of what actually occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 from being revealed. This cover-up is obviously intended to prevent a real investigation, which would take seriously the statements made by firefighters and others about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings before and during the collapses, and would investigate those who had access to the interiors of those buildings, such as contractors, maintenance workers, etc. to determine how charges could have been planted and to test the steel for evidence of explosive residue. Neither of these things were ever done by any official investigation to date.

yep I also gave you a like, because NIST was flat out busted by chandler, jones et al and the actors should be facing criminal negligence and fraud charges.

They are using a highly sophisticated form of subterfuge to misrepresent and paint the event to fulfill a political agenda. Hence complicit in the murder of many innocent people.

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

ozeco41 said:
This one is simpler. It is a single sided - "unidirectional" - claim essentially one framed by Szamboti,. It alleges errors in the analysis of WTC7 collapse.

It actually alleges that NIST falsified data and provides solid, irrefutable evidence that NIST did indeed falsify data.

Bottom line is that Szamboti's claims have been addressed in detail across numerous forums.

That's the bottom line? What is the relevance? I don't see any.

His claim is simply not made out.

Not made out by you. That's also irrelevant.

It has been shown to be wrong in details (by numerous technical persons) and unproven at the overall level (by me and a few others).

Which numerous technical persons would that be? Since it's peer reviewed by numerous technical persons, it seems the opposite is the case. You and a "few others" who are basically strongly biased anonymous defenders of the OCT are not relevant.

I see no point in pursuing discussion of the technical validity (invalidity actually) of the Szamboti source claim unless someone wants to support those claims. Until that stage there is nothing to discuss here on this forum within the technical scope of the Szamboti/Pepper claim.

I suggested what you can do. This forum is not the proper medium for a technical discussion but it seems you only want to restrict such a discussion to a forum that is not filled with those technically inclined to discuss the fine details. You know full well that's pretty cowardly of you and indicates you have no confidence in your claims.

The political tactics of the AE911 initiative of using the Szamboti claim as the core of the Pepper letter is a separate issue. I'll wait to see if anyone wants to discuss it.

It was discussed in a different thread.

The reminder is political hyperbole - which goes nowhere until and unless the relevant technical claims are supported and accepted.

By who, you?

Since Bob does not indicate what he is quoting OR distinguish what he is claiming there is no point speculation on a claim that has not been made - by Bob.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, you're not being specific. If you mean this then the source of the blog is here: Why are the ASCE Journals being dishonest and misleading concerning how the WTC Towers collapsed? | 911Blogger.com If you mean the opinion I posted following the blog, please make yourself clear.

Do you want discussion or not Bob?

If you do what do you want discussed?

You tell me what YOU want to discuss. I already admitted I don't have the expertise or background to discuss the technical details of the 2 papers (Bazant & Szamboti), so I can only generalize based on what's obvious. In the past, you ended discussion using the pretext that I'm "not serious" because I disagreed with you (a common tactic used by the defenders of the OCT in this forum). If you go down that road again, there can be no real discussion.

Thoreau72 · Sep 16, 2014

The sad truth is that ALL of the meaningful information gathered has been done by private and concerned citizens.

NOT the government and not the MSM.

If it weren't for individuals and groups like AE911 or PFT, the official story would still stand.

ASCE should be ashamed for its participation in the coverup. NTSB too.

psikeyhackr · Sep 16, 2014

Henry David said:
The sad truth is that ALL of the meaningful information gathered has been done by private and concerned citizens.

NOT the government and not the MSM.

If it weren't for individuals and groups like AE911 or PFT, the official story would still stand.

ASCE should be ashamed for its participation in the coverup. NTSB too.

The trouble is it is worse than that.

Within 2 months of 9/11 every high school physics teacher should have been able to come up with reasons why no skyscraper nearly that big, that stood for more than a decade, could possibly come down like that. This is a refusal of tens of thousands of scientists to do science properly.

I don't get it. If it was possible, then models demonstrating the event should have been made a decade ago. But I really don't get AE911. Why don't they have a model demonstrating the arrest of the collapse and talk about the mass distribution down skyscrapers?

Instead they seem to be just playing marketing and propaganda games. Like they are more interested in making money dragging this out than definitively solving it.

psik

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

psikeyhackr said:
Within 2 months of 9/11 every high school physics teacher should have been able to come up with reasons why no skyscraper nearly that big, that stood for more than a decade, could possibly come down like that. This is a refusal of tens of thousands of scientists to do science properly.

One activist high school physics teacher did (David Chandler) but it took a few years. Other scientists also did but it also took a few years for a variety of reasons.

I don't get it. If it was possible, then models demonstrating the event should have been made a decade ago.

But since it isn't possible, no model can demonstrate that. Even NIST's computer model fails to demonstrate it despite their deliberate disappearing structural component shenanigans.

But I really don't get AE911. Why don't they have a model demonstrating the arrest of the collapse and talk about the mass distribution down skyscrapers?

Well you are certainly welcome to take that approach and publish it for peer review. There are many papers that have been written that show that a collapse (really a destruction) in the manner of the towers based on fire, planes or both is impossible using different criteria. So perhaps no one bothered with your approach because other approaches are sufficient? (just speculating)

Instead they seem to be just playing marketing and propaganda games.

It's not either or. Many have made the case quite clearly using other approaches. It seems you're agreeing with the mantra by those who criticize all your posts. In order to publicize their findings to the fullest extent and reach the widest audience possible, it helps to take whatever marketing approach would yield the best result.

Like they are more interested in making money dragging this out than definitively solving it.

It's silly to believe this endeavor can be undertaken without proper funding. Of course they have to use whatever means at their disposal to properly fund their agenda otherwise it would die very quickly. I'm not sure what you mean by "definitively solving it". Unless you mean that you believe only your approach is a definitive solution that demonstrates why such collapses cannot possibly be a natural outcome of fire, planes or both. Also, what exactly is being "dragged out"?

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

psikeyhackr said:
The trouble is it is worse than that.

Within 2 months of 9/11 every high school physics teacher should have been able to come up with reasons why no skyscraper nearly that big, that stood for more than a decade, could possibly come down like that. This is a refusal of tens of thousands of scientists to do science properly.

Or it is your refusal to admit reality happened and you are wrong.

I don't get it.

Clearly.

If it was possible, then models demonstrating the event should have been made a decade ago.

Yes they have. We do them on computers now.

But I really don't get AE911.

Agreed.

Why don't they have a model demonstrating the arrest of the collapse and talk about the mass distribution down skyscrapers?

Instead they seem to be just playing marketing and propaganda games. Like they are more interested in making money dragging this out than definitively solving it.

psik

Why are you so obsessed with models? They are not necessary in the case of the Twin Towers and doing one is not going to move the needle on what actually happened one little bit.

zyzygy · Sep 16, 2014

Mark F said:
Why are you so obsessed with models?

A Naomi Campbell fixation?

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

zyzygy said:
A Naomi Campbell fixation?

Psikey apparently can not believe anything can happen unless someone does a physical model, but then he never says what it is exactly that needs to be modelled that can not be gleaned from watching the real-world behavior of the damaged buildings.

Thoreau72 · Sep 16, 2014

psikeyhackr said:
The trouble is it is worse than that.

Within 2 months of 9/11 every high school physics teacher should have been able to come up with reasons why no skyscraper nearly that big, that stood for more than a decade, could possibly come down like that. This is a refusal of tens of thousands of scientists to do science properly.

I don't get it. If it was possible, then models demonstrating the event should have been made a decade ago. But I really don't get AE911. Why don't they have a model demonstrating the arrest of the collapse and talk about the mass distribution down skyscrapers?

Instead they seem to be just playing marketing and propaganda games. Like they are more interested in making money dragging this out than definitively solving it.

psik

I completely 150% agree with your point about modeling.

I would be most interested in seeing a P&L statement for AE911. I've sent a few hundred dollars over the years, but I doubt very much that Richard Gage or Rob Balsamo are making money from their conscientious endeavors.

I think that if someone expects that frequently thrown out charge to stick, they should produce some sort of evidence to prove it. It's public record, isn't it?

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

Henry David said:
I completely 150% agree with your point about modeling.

I would be most interested in seeing a P&L statement for AE911. I've sent a few hundred dollars over the years, but I doubt very much that Richard Gage or Rob Balsamo are making money from their conscientious endeavors.

I think that if someone expects that frequently thrown out charge to stick, they should produce some sort of evidence to prove it. It's public record, isn't it?

Spreading 9/11 woo is Richard Gage's sole source of income. It is his day job. For Crazy Capn' Bobby its just a lucrative hobby.

Thoreau72 · Sep 16, 2014

C'mon Mark. I barely read your silly posts anymore, and that is an example of why.

If YOU claim Gage is getting rich, prove it. Take a shot at it dude. Put those Cojones Of Integrity on the line. :mrgreen:

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

Henry David said:
C'mon Mark. I barely read your silly posts anymore, and that is an example of why.

If YOU claim Gage is getting rich, prove it. Take a shot at it dude. Put those Cojones Of Integrity on the line. :mrgreen:

You do love your men of straw. Let me re-post what I wrote, then you can bold for me where I said Richard Gage is getting rich.

"Spreading 9/11 woo is Richard Gage's sole source of income. It is his day job."

Take a shot at it dude. Show me where I said Gage is getting rich. Put those Cojones Of Integrity on the line. :mrgreen:

All three of you guys - you, Bob and Bman have managed to fabricate total strawman claims over things I never said today. Nice going!

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

Mark F said:
All three of you guys - you, Bob and Bman have managed to fabricate total strawman claims over things I never said today. Nice going!

Could it be because you say these absurd things then claim you never said them?

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

Henry David said:
It's public record, isn't it?

Yes it is, AE911 is a non-profit organization.

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
Could it be because you say these absurd things then claim you never said them?

Apparently not. The three of you just have a bad habit of making :censored up, examples of your dishonest, gross misrepresentations having already been presented.

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

Mark F said:
Apparently not. The three of you just have a bad habit of making :censored up, examples of your dishonest, gross misrepresentations having already been presented.

That's your MO Mark. I catch you making stuff up (lying) nearly daily and so do others. You've started several threads with made up stuff and try to pass it off as fact.

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
That's your MO Mark. I catch you making stuff up (lying) nearly daily and so do others. You've started several threads with made up stuff and try to pass it off as fact.

No, you find things that I post that you disagree with that you can't refute through logic and reason so you resort to name-calling. That and I suspect you can not really tell the difference between lying, genuine disagreement and error. In your worldview I suspect anything you disagree with is automatically labelled a lie. I however tend to prefer the literal interpretation of the word.

I can assure you that I have never advocated a position on this forum where I did not think I was correct in both fact and logic. If you feel otherwise, rather than all the insults and name-calling or running away you should probably try to produce a superior argument using superior facts instead. I assure you that such a tactic could only be more successful.

OTOH earlier today you claimed I made statements I never made and I then demonstrated that I never made those statements AND detailed exactly what I did say and mean. We have repeated that process multiple times.

Yet you have the gall to project and call me the liar :naughty

Bob0627 · Sep 16, 2014

Mark F said:
Yet you have the gall to project and call me the liar

Yeah I do when you lie and that's nearly daily. But you are not the focus of this particular thread nor are your daily lies. This thread is a discussion regarding the dishonesty of ASCE Journals not your dishonesty. You're confused.

Mark F · Sep 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
Yeah I do when you lie and that's nearly daily. But you are not the focus of this particular thread nor are your daily lies. This thread is a discussion regarding the dishonesty of ASCE Journals not your dishonesty. You're confused.

Bob, for the last time, I can absolutely assure you that I will with great frequency post things you disagree with, I will NEVER post anything I do not believe to be absolutely true. Therefoe I can not be lying. I know you don't understand the difference but needless to say you need not bother calling me a liar anymore just because I commit the mortal sin of disagreeing with you. To do so only makes you the liar, not me and speaks only to your character, not mine.

Now then, if you would like to actually discuss something in an adult manner I am all for it. I notice for example you gave up on defending your OP pretty much immediately. What gives?

Bob0627 · Sep 17, 2014

Mark F;1063764855I can absolutely assure you that I will with great frequency post things you disagree with said:
I will NEVER post anything I do not believe to be absolutely true.[/B]

Well that's a great relief Mark. Here I thought you were a dishonest person, with your assurance you finally overwhelmingly convinced me ... that I'm 100% correct. I've asked you numerous times, who have you ever convinced to change his/her position on 9/11? I never did get an answer. It's ok Mark, you have a job to do, I completely understand, it's tough to make a decent living these days, some have to do what they have to do to make ends meet.

I notice for example you gave up on defending your OP pretty much immediately. What gives?

Your deliberate diversion plus the fact that I've already done that plus the fact that there hasn't been anything posted by anyone regarding the OP that prompts me to respond (at my discretion of course). What I posted is just a very tiny piece in the scheme of 9/11 things but it is informative to those who wish to be informed. The discussion about your lies is not, it's just a distraction.

Mark F · Sep 17, 2014

Bob0627 said:
Well that's a great relief Mark. Here I thought you were a dishonest person, with your assurance you finally overwhelmingly convinced me ... that I'm 100% correct.

Stop being a child Bob. It is unbecoming.

The claim of lie brings with it a very high burden of proof. For you to claim I (or anyone else) is lying you must:
1. Establish through fact and reasoned argument the claim being made or the fact being presented is false.
2. The individual presenting that claim or fact knows it is false and is presenting it fully aware of its falsehood. That is the big one - it has to be a conscious act.

You don't do that.

What I see happening is you encounter a claim you disagree with but can not rebut or refute through superior logic, reason and fact. Unable to counter the claim but unwilling to accept it you resort to base programming, call the claimant a liar without making any effort to establish the claim is false or the claimant knows it is false, declare victory and run away.

That didn't work in the schoolyard, it doesn't work here and you are not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

You make false claims - errors of fact and/or reason - on a regular basis. Notice I never resort to name-calling with you. I don't call you a liar when you are wrong because I understand there is a difference between lying and being wrong. If I was genuinely in error you would be able to demonstrate that through superior reasoning and fact. That you resort to name-calling just reinforces the fact you can not.

I've asked you numerous times, who have you ever convinced to change his/her position on 9/11? I never did get an answer. It's ok Mark, you have a job to do, I completely understand, it's tough to make a decent living these days, some have to do what they have to do to make ends meet.

I gave you the only answer I can give. I do not know. I can not know how many people I have managed to get out of their rut to see logic and reason. This may be a game for you, it is not for me. I do not and can not keep score. I have no way of knowing for example how many people went away satisfied with the answers but without saying anything.

What I can do is agree with Oz that there are apparently no genuine Truthers left. The only folks left spreading 9/11 woo fall into the truly delusional zealot category and seem to be immune to fact, logic or reason. They can not think, therefore they are stuck in the CT mindtrap, the inability to think being why they got there in the first place. Incapable of reasoned argument or forming a plausible hypothesis from multiple points of data, they resort to name-calling, evasion, derails and running away as standard debate tactics along wit time-honored classics like reversed burden of proof.

So now lets turn the tables, how many people have you turned to the cause of 9/11 woo as a paid shill of anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist factions? :mrgreen:

Your deliberate diversion plus the fact that I've already done that plus the fact that there hasn't been anything posted by anyone regarding the OP that prompts me to respond (at my discretion of course). What I posted is just a very tiny piece in the scheme of 9/11 things but it is informative to those who wish to be informed. The discussion about your lies is not, it's just a distraction.

You missed Post #2 then.

zyzygy · Sep 17, 2014

Mark F said:
Stop being a child Bob. It is unbecoming.

The claim of lie brings with it a very high burden of proof. For you to claim I (or anyone else) is lying you must:
1. Establish through fact and reasoned argument the claim being made or the fact being presented is false.
2. The individual presenting that claim or fact knows it is false and is presenting it fully aware of its falsehood. That is the big one - it has to be a conscious act.

You don't do that.

What I see happening is you encounter a claim you disagree with but can not rebut or refute through superior logic, reason and fact. Unable to counter the claim but unwilling to accept it you resort to base programming, call the claimant a liar without making any effort to establish the claim is false or the claimant knows it is false, declare victory and run away.

That didn't work in the schoolyard, it doesn't work here and you are not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

You make false claims - errors of fact and/or reason - on a regular basis. Notice I never resort to name-calling with you. I don't call you a liar when you are wrong because I understand there is a difference between lying and being wrong. If I was genuinely in error you would be able to demonstrate that through superior reasoning and fact. That you resort to name-calling just reinforces the fact you can not.

I gave you the only answer I can give. I do not know. I can not know how many people I have managed to get out of their rut to see logic and reason. This may be a game for you, it is not for me. I do not and can not keep score. I have no way of knowing for example how many people went away satisfied with the answers but without saying anything.

What I can do is agree with Oz that there are apparently no genuine Truthers left. The only folks left spreading 9/11 woo fall into the truly delusional zealot category and seem to be immune to fact, logic or reason. They can not think, therefore they are stuck in the CT mindtrap, the inability to think being why they got there in the first place. Incapable of reasoned argument or forming a plausible hypothesis from multiple points of data, they resort to name-calling, evasion, derails and running away as standard debate tactics along wit time-honored classics like reversed burden of proof.

So now lets turn the tables, how many people have you turned to the cause of 9/11 woo as a paid shill of anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist factions? :mrgreen:

You missed Post #2 then.

Don't take it so seriously. Bob appears to have a lot of time on his hands and is merely amusing himself.

ASCE Journals Dishonest & Misleading Concerning the Destruction of WTC Towers

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency