Where are the experts?

[Ezlivin]

I've been following closely the discussions of and research about the events of 9/11. Like many of you I believe we are not being told the truth. Every time someone posts something on this board about the construction of the WTC or flight parameters or any number of technical issues, the discussion is typically hampered due to the lack of impartial experts.

If we assume that most of America's mechanical engineers, professional pilots and intelligence experts remain quiet because of respect, pressure or fear of job loss, where are the foreign analogues to these experts?

Where are the studies done by European mechanical engineers that prove or disprove the official theory?

Where are the European professional pilots and their comments on the events of 9/11?

It seems like there would be plenty of PhDs worldwide who could investigate the data collected so far.

Or are we just not seeing the information?

[Kevin Fenton]

1. The people of this board

are motivated to talk about 9/11, many of them for several hours a day (self occasionally included). Most other people barely mention it. How many people have even heard of an alternative account of 9/11? I must have mentioned parts of it to God knows how many people, but the only thing my friends and acquaintances have heard of is the Pentagon part, and that because of the crap that Meyssan wrote (only 2 people I knew registered this). I guess the primary reason people aren't commenting on an alternative account of 9/11 is because they haven't heard of it.

[hack89]

2. But if the science in the official reports is bad..

surely all these engineers and scientist would see it and comment? There must be tremendous profession interest in the global engineering and scientific community so you cannot argue that the NIST and FEMA reports are not a topic of discussion internationally.

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Indeed,

I argue that nobody gives a toss about 9/11 or the reports about it internationally. How many languages has the 9/11 Ommission Report been translated into? The NIST report? I know a few engineering professionals, none of them have read the NIST report, none of them plan to. On the (rare) occasions I go to professional gatherings, nobody mentions Sibel Edmonds - we have better things to talk about (how much we are paid, the badness of dispatchers, etc.). Have you seen any articles discussing the NIST report? Nobody cares.

[hack89]

5. Isn't English the language of science?

Of course there is professional interest - what happened at the WTC will influence building construction and fire safety for decades. No skyscraper will ever be built without reference to the NIST report and its 30 recommendations concerning building codes and fire safety requirements.

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Yes, English is the language of science

in America, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Generally, Russian engineers speak Russian, Chinese engineers speak Chinese, etc. When most foreigners speak English they are able to manage short verbal conversations, but don't read long, complicated technical reports, because they wouldn't understand them. They're not all as good as Strafing Moose.

What percentage of engineers do you think actually design steel-frame skyscrapers? More or less than 0.1% of them? AFAIK there isn't a steel-frame skyscraper within 500 miles of here (the heart of Europe) so I doubt they even teach steel-frame skyscraper design at any university in this country. The same goes for lots of other countries.
For example, one engineer I know just does piping systems (heating, air conditioning, water, etc.), another specialises in underground construction, a third actually manages projects, but has never built anything more than 10 floors high. Why should any of them read the NIST report (even if they could speak English, which they can't)? How is it relevant to the actual work done by the vast majority of engineers?

"No skyscraper will ever be built without reference to the NIST report and its 30 recommendations concerning building codes and fire safety requirements."
That was a joke, right?
The main lesson engineers appear to be taking from the WTC is that if you build a really tall building, then a terrorist might fly a plane into it, so don't build a really tall building.

[hack89]

23. You do know what NIST does, don't you?

they develop standards. The point you and so many fail to grasp was that the NIST investigation was never a criminal investigation - it had a very limit scope which was to extract lessons from the WTC and incorporate them into future building codes.

[LARED]

30. Shhhhh

that info appears to be verboten to the CT community.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pox americana]

43. Ahem.

I pointed that out two weeks ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=51287&mesg_id=52416

Glad to see you're reading my posts.

[LARED]

54. Only two weeks ago

What took you so long to figure that out?

[Kevin Fenton]

50. You made that up

I never said that the the NIST investigation was a criminal investigation and I've never read a post to that effect by anybody else either.

If you actually read the NIST report you will see on page 33/xxxi, for example, that its first specific objective was to, "Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC2 collapsed ... and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." I think that's pretty clear.

[Ezlivin]

4. Where are the anti-Americans when you need them?

There must be tremendous profession interest in the global engineering and scientific community so you cannot argue that the NIST and FEMA reports are not a topic of discussion internationally.

Precisely. You would think that there would be an abundance of people just itching to prove that America is under totalitarian rule.

[spooked911]

20. There probably are, but they are also afraid of their jobs

These are professionals with a reputation and job to maintain.

Via "janedoe", I have learned there are several engineering professors who doubt the official WTC collapse story but really ARE afraid of speaking out for fears of it affecting their careers.

Whistleblowing is not something that comes easily or cheaply.

These engineers have everything to lose and little to gain by speaking out by themselves. If just one of them speaks out, they can easily be written off as a wacko. Hopefully with time they will get united and then be more of a force.

[hack89]

22. And all the retired engineers who have nothing to loose? n/t

[spooked911]

25. Another important fact is most engineers are conservatives and thus

support Bush and very much want to believe in the official story.

I think this is the number one reason more engineers haven't come out against the official story.

Many retired engineers may also not have looked at the footage of the towers collapsing since 9/11, if they even saw it then. They probably haven't even thought about it much.

Retired engineers probably also still want to maintain their reputation to some degree.

[hack89]

26. So all the engineers and scientist involved in the ...

environmental, anti-nuke and anti-DU movements are conservative Bush lovers? OK if you say so:eyes:

[spooked911]

27. Many academic researchers are more liberal

but it is hard to deny that most engineers are conservatives.

As I said, there are several things going on here:
1) conservatives are in denial
2) subject is taboo for most people
3) most people do not even know the evidence
4) there active coercion/suppression of people from speaking out
5) many people fear career being harmed

what don't you understand about this?

[hack89]

36. I understand that you are in denial..

about basic human nature. You know, those progressive values of morality and courage. You have a dark and cynical view of your fellow man that is disturbing.

[pox americana]

38. Pot, meet kettle. (n/t)

[hack89]

40. So people by nature are cowards and weak?

you must feel so powerful to walk so tall among the sheeple - or is carrying the Truth a burden? Tell how you manage.

[pox americana]

44. I'm not judging anyone.

But anybody hanging around this forum for months has no excuse for not getting it.

[spooked911]

46. I never said anything like that.

I suppose I am a weak coward myself, since I am not willing to jeopardize my career and comfortable lifestyle by engaging in serious protest. Heck, I don't even tell my co-workers very much, as I am afraid of what they would think of me.

But I do have two little kids and I don't want them harrassed in any way by something I do. So that is my rationale.

Definitely though it is not fun thinking about my govt doing something so evil.

But at least I recognize there is a problem with the official 9/11 account.

[stickdog]

32. Why would anyone comment? What would any scientist or

engineer gain from criticizing NIST's reports. It's obvious that the reports are speculative and shoddy to anybody who reads them. But why make a stink about the quality of the science and engineering when it confirms what you already believe and don't find controversial?

[LARED]

34. Why?

Because the National Institute of Standards and Technology sets many STANDARDS that industry use in the operation of their business.

Insurance companies require that manufactures run their businesses to standards in order to limit liability and minimize risk. To put it another way industry has a compelling interest in making sure standards make sense and they are ready to meet those standards. Not being able to meet standards or the ability to influence standards often means the difference between a company that grows and prospers, or one the dies.

The reports regarding the world trade center failure will impact construction codes, costs, and liabilities for decades across an immense cross section of the manufacturing sector.

Believe me there is great interest in what the NIST says about the WTC failures.

[stickdog]

42. So why didn't anybody fully examine the PHYSICAL evidence then?

Why analyze photographs and video and create highly speculative computer models instead? Why would competent scientists and engineers advance hypotheses that aren't backed by a shred of physical evidence unless they were working backwards from a subset of acceptable possibilities?

[LARED]

53. How do you know the computer models were

highly speculative?

[stickdog]

60. I read the reports. Did you?

Your uncritical endorsement of NIST's less than convincing "scientific" methods certainly makes me wonder.

[pox americana]

35. Bingo. Who in their right mind is going to publicly cross Rove? n/t

[MrSammo1]

68. Some are waking up!

Professionals can be sheep also! It's called follow the leader!

http://physics911.net/spine.htm

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=34507

[LARED]

6. You did overlook one possibility

The experts (expert does not include Google engineers) in the world have looked at the technical events surrounding 9/11 and concluded there is not much to criticize in the "official theory."

[philb]

7. Do you have any evidence supporting that?

There have been some articles analyzing the official reports by engineers, contractors, architects,etc. in threads here that contradict the official reports. And pointing out convincing problems imo.

[LARED]

9. Perhaps I missed it

but can you point me to any bona-fide experts that contradict the official story in a substantive or convincing way.

And as you point out there may be "some" that you find convincing. Yet the world is full of highly credentialed individuals that seemingly find nothing of substance wrong with the official story.

How do you reconcile this?

[spooked911]

10. Severe denial. Or they are being coerced or paid off.

It is clear this is happening in the engineering community.

Van Romero, an expert on demolitions, said the WTC was brought down by explosives, but then recanted-- shortly thereafter he was rewarded with a nice fat endowment.

"PM fails to acknowledge any of the global collapse features that researchers often cite as proving demolition, such as verticallity, explosiveness, pulverization and rapidity -- features abundantly documented in the extensive body of surviving photographs and videos. <16> <17> Instead it implies that conspiracy theorists rely on the opinion of expert Van Romero:
Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
The following excerpts from the Albuquerque Journal article make it difficult to accept the explanation that Romero was misquoted.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures. ... "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." ... "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."
PM quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/

Moreover, there is this story:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/2357
"The top U.S. Army contracting official who first raised criticism over Halliburton's no-bid contract in Iraq was demoted Sunday for what the army called poor job performance -- the first time her performance was rated low in 20 years.

Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) blasted the Bush administration’s decision to fire the lead government whistleblower in a statement to RAW STORY.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has lowered the axe on someone courageous enough to speak the truth about an abuse of taxpayer dollars," he remarked. "Ms. Greenhouse was simply being honest, which seems to be enough to get you fired in this Administration.

"This action is meant to send a chilling message to other federal workers: keep your mouth shut," he added."

Then there is the well known case of the EPA lying about how clean the air was at ground zero.

Face it, scientists have been pressured to keep quiet about this-- and a sad and large problem is that the Democrats have no interest in letting the truth out because they are very complicit in the cover up from the beginning.

[LARED]

12. So if I understand, you've got

nothing that point's me to any bona-fide experts that contradict the official story in a substantive or convincing way.

Romero's changing his story is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing substantive or convincing that your view about this has merit

The rest has nothing to due with experts being suppressed.

[spooked911]

15. So Romero changing his story then getting huge grants and

contracts for his institute is just pure coincidence, right?

I'm glad you live in such a perfect ideal world.

[LARED]

16. What makes him getting a grant so unusual?

He has been the Vice President for Research and Economic Development, New Mexico Tech since 1997. He is well connected to government funding programs. Look at his CV.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

Him getting grants is hardly a shock.

[spooked911]

19. It's not just getting a grant--it is the amount and timing

[LARED]

21. So you know the amount and timing of this grant

is somehow different than past awards. I sure you can substantiate the differences that are noteworthy.

Thanks in advance

[spooked911]

24. I'll leave it to you to figure out if his increased lobbying prowess

had anything to do with him changing his tune on how the towers came down.

Do you deny that some people have been coerced to do doing bad things by the Bush administration?

[LARED]

29. I'm sure some have been coerced. That does not mean

he was. Nor does it mean the vast, vast, majority of experts that seem to accept the official story are coerced into anything. Nor does it mean any favors were granted.

Face it spooked, you're clinging onto vapors when it comes to credentialed experts making the CT case.

[pox americana]

37. Oh brother. This adminstration is nothing BUT coersion.

Do you ever read real news?

[hack89]

39. How did you escape the dragnet?

not only can you prove that the BFEE was behind 9/11, you are vocally proclaiming it. How is it that all the 9/11 "researchers" have escaped the omnipotent "administration" and are still able to spread the truth?
Could it be that they don't care - or perhaps they are pleased with what you are saying?

[spooked911]

48. I don't think they really care about what anonymous posters say on an

online forum. I am not sure why YOU seem to care.

[LARED]

41. I'm always amazed at how much power some believe

the Bush administration wields. They suck, and are doing a fine job of screwing stuff up, but they REALLY lack the superhuman powers needed to control and subjugate every citizen that criticizes them.

[pox americana]

45. Two strikes.

1) They are not "screwing stuff up," they are committing crimes, and
2) They have all the power in the world, literally.

Any questions?

[LARED]

51. Questions, yes I have two

How did you get so paranoid and cynical?

Does these views extend to other administrations or just Bush's?

[spooked911]

47. They control the media pretty well, and that is what counts.

Besides that, see the many reasons I listed above for why professionals do not speak out.

[LARED]

52. They control the media?

That explains how there is nearly no negative reporting about Bush? Right? Just endless glowing reports of how competent and wonderful he and his administration are.:sarcasm:

Sure he gets a more slack than I'd like to see, but they hardy control the media.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

58. Let me ask you a question

I believe the press is not nearly hard enough on Bush, but to imply the Bush administration has a stranglehold on the media is ridiculous.

If what your saying is true, how do you explain the amount of press Cindy Sheehan has gotten? Or the press on WMD, or many issues surrounding 9/11, plus a host of other issues? How about Social Security, was the press pining for the changes he wanted or did they challenge him on the issue? It's a shame my objectivity paints me as a troll in your mind.

I'm not saying the press is doing enough to expose this fraud of a president, only that if the Bush administration really did have a stranglehold on the press, the news would be far different.

[spooked911]

61. LARED--- did you ask to have my post deleted?

or did the moderator do it?

[LARED]

63. Mod's did it. (n/t)

[spooked911]

62. YES, people and the media are finally waking up to Bush.

but after 9/11 to the Iraq war and his "re-election", his administration HAD A STRANGLEHOLD ON THE MEDIA. YES THEY DID.

AND WHEN YOU QUESTION THAT PREMISE, YES, YOU SOUND LIKE A TROLL.

[LARED]

64. Have you changed your position?

Now you state Bush had a stranglehold on the media after 9/11 to Iraq. That's not what you indicated previously. You made a blanket statement that they completely control the media. So if I understand your position Bush used to have a stranglehold on the media but for some reason has relinquished his power over them? Why would he do that? Or is a better explaination that the media gave him slack because of the circumstances after 9/11, and now are rethinking their position. Meaning an independent press is still functioning, albeit poorly.

Also when you type in big bold letters that Bush's stranglehold on the media is a uncontested fact makes your position seem a tab bit paranoid.

And to make matters worse for yourself you feel it necessary to characterize someone as a troll for thinking the media is slacking in their duties, rather than believing they are under the direct control of the WH.

[spooked911]

65. Obviously I refined my statement, but the main point was the same.

Just curious-- how many different people post under LARED? Some of your messages sound like they come from different people.

[LARED]

66. Ok, you refined your position

So what is your main point, as your two positions seem irreconcilable?

Either Bush has a stranglehold on the media or he doesn't.

If he did, you are implying he released them for some reason. If he did not them the media was simply underperforming for various reasons for a time.

Please explain.

[spooked911]

73. Everyone ELSE at DU understand hows well Bush controls the

media, especially since 9/11.

What is it you don't understand that everyone at DU seems to?

Are you just upset that I said "stranglehold"?

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

I'm tired of this crap LARED.

[stickdog]

49. Why do you, a self-proclaimed expert, defend NIST's

highly speculative models -- which are not supported by a single shred of heard, physical evidence? Do you really think that NIST's dubious photographic and video analyses and speculative computer models qualify as convincing science? You obviously aren't remotely concerned that NIST's incredible feats of psuedo-scientific speculation are not supported by a single shred of the tiny fraction of hard, physical evidence that NIST even cursorily examined. Why not?

It seems to me that you can find the answers you seek by looking in the mirror.

[LARED]

55. Mind if I translate for you?

What you're really saying is that nothing the NIST or any other institution concludes will meet my standards unless the conclusions meet Stickdog's criteria of collapse by controlled demolition.

That really is your bottom line. Because in reality ( a seemingly distant concept to many) the models are not highly speculative, they are based on empirically found data and evidence of many sorts. No one is claiming the models are exact or precise. There is plenty of physical evidence once you lift your self imposed definition of the term.

[stickdog]

59. Bullshit. I asked you a few simple questions. You responded by

ignoring my questions and instead impugning my motives. That's very telling. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you or do you not think speculative computer models are as scientifically conclusive as a complete examination of hard, physical evidence? If not, how in the world can you justify your uncritical endorsement of NIST's reverse engineered pseudoscience?

[pauldp]

28. Anybody know if Van Romero commented on WTC7 specifically?

I've not seen anything about it.

[spooked911]

11. see my post 10, also foreigners have come out against 9/11

see here:
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

The foreigners who haven't spoken out are probably very closely aligned with the US.

Since 9/11, there has been a huge taboo about questioning that day. Slowly the taboo is coming off, but there was a taboo.

You just didn't question 9/11-- you were just made to feel un-American or very sick if you did.

Now that has changed and more and more will come out.

[LARED]

13. Pardon me, but the German Engineers Helping the USA web

site is downright laughable. There are no experts on that site. There are no engineers as far as I can tell. Why post it, you know it's not credible.

:banghead:

[spooked911]

14. what is wrong with the site?

[LARED]

17. Being able to spell Engineer would be a great start (n/t)

[spooked911]

18. Huh????? They spell it right as far as I can see.

In any case, they can be excused, as they are GERMAN.

[LARED]

31. Where to start is the hard part

A brilliant engineering analysis of why the facade was hardly damaged



Or this compelling case for CD



This is obviously serious work that should be compelling for the layman and expert alike. :sarcasm:

[spooked911]

57. NYTimes today editorial: "Banished Whistle-Blowers"

"The Bush administration is making no secret of its determination to punish whistle-blowers and other federal workers who object to the doctoring of facts that clash with policy and spin. The blatant retaliation includes the Army general sidelined for questioning the administration's projections about needed troop strength in Iraq, the Medicare expert muted when he tried to inform Congress about the true cost of the new prescription subsidies and the White House specialist on climate change who was booted after complaining that global warming statistics were being massaged by political tacticians."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/opinion/01thu3.html

Any other questions?????

[Christophera]

67. FLAG ABUSE: Experts, Engineers, Ph.d's, Contractors, Afraid, Social Fear

The shear magnitude and bout of impossibility of the towers coming down traumatized the entire nation. Experts, Engineers, Ph.d's, Contractors all have licenses issued by the state which is the model for the people in acceptability, competence. When the flags came out as if we had been hit by Muslim terrorists (we were but they were fully enabled) and the drums of war started, social fear of castigation began to control us all.

I pisses me off. I don't like living like this.

[LARED]

69. What about all those

foreign experts, engineers, Ph.d's, contractors outside the USA. Are they subject to same psychological intimidation you believe those in the USA underwent?

[Christophera]

71. Guess You Never Heard Of The One World Government, It Already Exists.

That's one of the things many don't realize yet.

And a few engineers have come out with their analysis of the WTC event.

There was a Japanese engineer and a German who published denouncement of the veracity of the WTC report.

[MercutioATC]

70. We do have some experts right here...

We have engineers, professional pilots, a couple of air traffic controllers...

Most of the time they're shouted down by laypersons who insist that because something doesn't make sense to them, there must be a conspiracy.

[Christophera]

72. Generalizations Are Distortions: Freefall Must Be Explained Because ....

it basically happened and that is impossible under the conditions described officially. Meaning any who do not present a credible way for free fall to ocurr have no credibility.