Flaneur wrote:This entire post could just as well be an argument for intelligent design.

So could Unblinking Eye's. If a pastor was convincing enough, he'd have you hook, line, and sinker, as long as his dogma was presented as logical*. As long as the person considers the preacher an "expert".



*Cosmological argument

**Teleological argument

Is there a difference between dogma and data, to you?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to instead believe the theories of far less qualified people (INTERNET CONSPIRACY THEORISTS)

Updated petition by engineers and architects requesting a real 9/11 investigation ( now over 190 signatures ):

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Architects
(Degreed & Licensed) Architectural Professionals

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA

Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA

Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA

Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA

John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA

David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Henri Tso, Architectural Professional
Walnut Creek, CA

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA

Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA

John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA

Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional
Eugene, OR

Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA

Jan Leits, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA

Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY

Chris Jung, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA

Tim Clark, Architectural Professional
Albany, CA

Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY

Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Lily Livingston, AIA, Architect
Oakland, CA

Wendy Sitler, Designer
Berkeley, CA

Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA

Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA

Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg, Florida

Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional
San Francisco, CA

Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA

Dave Heller, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA

Mickey Propadovich, Architect *
Evanston, Illinois

Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner
San Francisco, CA

Michael C. Coffey, AIA, Architect *
New York, NY

Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist
Lake Geneva, WI

Dennis Holloway, Architect, Architect *
Rio Rancho, NM

Travis Van Brasch, Associate AIA, Design Principal
San Francisco, CA

Michael E. Balay, Architect
Fishers, Indiana

Arnold A. Valdez M.Arch, Designer/Planner *
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Ronald F. Avery, Architect *
Seguin, Texas

Justin Feider, Intern Architect *
Denver, Colorado

Bruce Richey, AIA, Architect
Ashland, Oregon

Alan S. Glassman, M. Arch., Associate AIA, CSI, SA, Architectural Research Consultant *
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Am Amnusydcjkorn, B. I.Arch, Designer *
Berkeley, CA

Felix Goebel, Dipl. Ing (Architektur)
Oakland, CA

Mojgan Saberi, BS Arch., Designer
Oakland, CA

Engineers
(Degreed & Licensed)

Engineering Professionals
(Degreed)

J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA

Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL

Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA

Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA

John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer *
Walnut Creek, CA

Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer
Thousand Oaks, CA

Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN

Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer *
Miami, Florida

Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Mellon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA

John Franklin, P.E. *
Lubec, ME

John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA

Peter Gibbons P.E., Professional Engineer *
Mccausland,, Iowa

John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA

Mr. Cameron Porter PHD, Mechanical Engineer *

Boston, Massachusetts

Anthony Szamboti, BSME, Mechanical Engineering
Blackwood, NJ

Peter D. Morse, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Tucson, Arizona

Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA

Tim Rohach P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME
Sugar Land, Texas

Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,

Barry K. Miller, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Hinsdale, NY

Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical Engineer *
Indianapolis, Indiana

Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural)
Houston, Texas

John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer *
Eureka, CA

Ron Paul LeBlanc, PE, Engineer
Firestone, CO

S. Drake, Electrical Engineer *
Bear, DE

Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer *
West Bend, WI

Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff *
Fort Worth, Texas

Steven Reiser, Chemical Engineer *
Westminster, CO

David Gregg Ph.D., Chemical Engineer
Moraga, California

James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant *
Austin, TX

Andrew Griffith B.S. Chemical Engineering, Engineering *
Seattle, WA

Richard Besco, Engineering Staff *
San Luis Obispo, CA

Keith E. Fleming BS Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Staff *
Auburn, GA

Mike Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
Tempe, AZ

Henry Rozumski, Aerospace Engineer/ Analyst *
Aiea, HI

Jeff Rogers MSME, Engineer *
Woodland Park, CO

Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural / Soils Engineer
San Diego, California

David Wilkins, Electrical Engineer *
San Jose, CA

Robert Hulsart, Computer Engineer
Franklin Square, NY

Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982 *
Suttons Bay, Michigan

James R. Northrup, Sr., Welding Engineer & Journeyman Steamfitter
Ypsilanti, MI

Rich McCampbell, BS ChemE *
Boston, MA

Jon Marino, BSCE, EIT, Design Engineer
Phoenix, AZ

Victor Connor MS in electrical and computer engine, retired engineer from IBM and taught applied compu
Normal, IL

William Edward Parker, Retired Engineer
Louisville, KY

Gene Robinson, B.S. Industrial Engineer non-licensed *
Savannah, Georgia

Edwin Michael Taylor, E.I.T., Engineering Consultant *
Hampton, VA

Roger Twede, Engineering Staff *
Meridian, ID

Jack Meagher, BSNE, Nuclear Engineer *
Peterborough, NH

kerbled.

Flaneur wrote:Is there a difference between dogma and data, to you?

Of course there is. It's a difference that comes down to proof, but also agenda. If data is used to reinforce a specific ideology or opinion, what good is that to a person who wants only the info?

Skronk wrote:

Flaneur wrote:Is there a difference between dogma and data, to you?

Of course there is. It's a difference that comes down to proof, but also agenda. If data is used to reinforce a specific ideology or opinion, what good is that to a person who wants only the info?

Again, how is this argument different than an argument for intelligent design over evolution? Do Darwinists and structural engineers have agendas? Of course they do. They have the exact same agenda.

300 was a terrible movie.

kerble wrote:300 was a terrible movie.

"“That movie 300? Turns out how they got that title was they measured how gay it was on a scale of one to 10.” -S. Silverman

Flaneur wrote:

Skronk wrote:

Flaneur wrote:Is there a difference between dogma and data, to you?

Of course there is. It's a difference that comes down to proof, but also agenda. If data is used to reinforce a specific ideology or opinion, what good is that to a person who wants only the info?

Again, how is this argument different than an argument for intelligent design over evolution? Do Darwinists and structural engineers have agendas? Of course they do. They have the exact same agenda.

I never said there was a difference. Both Darwinists and I.D.'ers use the same methods and tactics, as do the opposing sides of the 9/11 debate.

Skronk wrote:

Flaneur wrote:

Skronk wrote:

Flaneur wrote:Is there a difference between dogma and data, to you?

Of course there is. It's a difference that comes down to proof, but also agenda. If data is used to reinforce a specific ideology or opinion, what good is that to a person who wants only the info?

Again, how is this argument different than an argument for intelligent design over evolution? Do Darwinists and structural engineers have agendas? Of course they do. They have the exact same agenda.

I never said there was a difference. Both Darwinists and I.D.'ers use the same methods and tactics, as do the opposing sides of the 9/11 debate.

No, you and the intelligent design fundamentalists are using the same arguments, and the darwinists and the structural engineers are using the same arguments.

And you and Ann Coulter kind of debate things the same way, too.

Skronk, at least Bob, I mean Rick, asks questions with some intended content. Your 4 "questions" are not questions. They are insults ending with question marks. You're lucky to get any response at all.

But you can redeem yourself. It turns out that Rosie O'Donnell has essentially the same objections to the standard theory that apparently you and Bob, I mean Rick, share.

While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.”

Now why not do something constructive like reading the responses to her objections, and then explaining to us why those responses are wrong? You can find the response to Rosie here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/9 ... 13805.html

But that's just the warm up. If you're going to prove your case, you have to be willing to work.

Next read the Dec. 2006 FAQ from the NIST where they respond to a number of objections to the standard theory. These include:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

Please explain how the responses the NIST offers here are flawed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As Carl Sagan was known to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

That is the burden you have chosen.

A breathless public awaits.