|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 30, 2006 2:03:13 GMT -4
The alleged wings left no marks on the building either. Where did they go? Where did the giant engine parts go? The Pentagon attack is one big smoking gun. It was most likely an unmanned drone or missile. This gets my vote for "the dumbest 9/11 CT of all time". Here are two reasons why I think so: 1) People driving down the highway that passes near the Pentagon saw the plane pass overhead before it crashed. Were they all hallucinating? 2) An airplane full of people did not make it to it's intended destination. If it didn't crash into the Pentagon then where are they? Seriously... the claim that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 30, 2006 2:21:22 GMT -4
Feelfree222
Let me explain.
I originally asked whether any structural engineers disputed the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers.
You’ve said:
So let’s summarise your points:
1. The structural engineering companies want reconstruction contracts. 2. Therefore the owners of the companies will go along with the official line. 3. The employees of the companies want to keep their jobs and pay, so they’ll go along with their bosses.
This theory only works if *every* structural engineering company wins a reconstruction contract.
At some point, these contracts will be awarded. Not every company will get a contract.
If a company doesn’t get a contract, the owners and employees in that company have nothing to lose from going along with the official line.
So your theory only works until the contracts are awarded.
Do you understand?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 2:29:05 GMT -4
If a company doesn’t get a contract, the owners and employees in that company have nothing to lose from going along with the official line. So your theory only works until the contracts are awarded. Do you understand? But as you know it actual and future lucrative US Goverment contracts are not limited ONLY to the towers reconstruction.Do you understand?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 30, 2006 2:32:12 GMT -4
feelfree222 said:
So the US Government is able to keep every structural engineering company in line by promising contracts at some time in the future? What happens if the people in the company get tired of waiting for a contract? Or are you sure that the US Government has enough contracts to award that it can guarantee their silence?
Do you have any evidence for this?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 2:38:22 GMT -4
feelfree222 said: So the US Government is able to keep every structural engineering company in line by promising contracts at some time in the future? What happens if the people in the company get tired of waiting for a contract? Or are you sure that the US Government has enough contracts to award that it can guarantee their silence? Do you have any evidence for this? I am not saying than the Goverment have promise each and everyone of them a contract. Maybe its time for you to rearead my first post.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 30, 2006 2:48:33 GMT -4
feelfree222 said:
Okay. Here it is.
Okay. I take your point. The US Government doesn't have to offer contracts to *all* structural engineering firms, but those that want them will have to stay in line with the official story.
But what about the structural engineering firms which don't want government contracts? How does the US Government stop their owners and employees from speaking their minds?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 2:52:48 GMT -4
Oh come on. Not all engineers work for companies bidding on the new buildings... surely you can find an engineer out there who doesn't have to worry about losing that particular contract. I find one.... Mechanical Engineering Professor From Clemson Speaks Up About WTC 'Collapses' Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, has recently published a website in which she discusses 'The Case for Controlled Demolition see post 1559 down the page apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1116367890&page=104
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 30, 2006 12:21:52 GMT -4
There is plenty of evidence a 757 hit the building, uncluding multiple eyewitness report, damage to light posts and trailers near the impact area and pictures of wreackage. www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.htmlThey only released a few frames from the security camera because that is all that was relevant. That camera only shot one frame per second.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 30, 2006 18:26:09 GMT -4
On this page it is clearly shown that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon does match the profile of a 757 quite well. feelfree222 seems to think that mere financial incentive would be enough to keep a professional group of probably several hundred thousand individuals in check. How many co-conspirators does that make by now? More or less then the complete population of a mid-sized state?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 19:02:58 GMT -4
feelfree222 seems to think that mere financial incentive would be enough to keep a professional group of probably several hundred thousand individuals in check. How many co-conspirators those that make by now? More or less then the complete population of a mid-sized state? LOL The only group of professionals which "can be" implied after the fact in the cover up are those -selected and mandated- for the Fema and NIST report.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Mar 30, 2006 19:07:30 GMT -4
Accessory after the fact.
You're accusing a awful lot of people of criminal behaviour.
IMHO that includes people who actually know that a crime has been committed, while no-one else does, and keep it to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 19:18:38 GMT -4
Accessory after the fact. You're accusing a awful lot of people of criminal behaviour. I am not accusing them of such a thing. They were mandated by the Government to achieve a FEA model thats all. They were not asked for more.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 30, 2006 19:54:49 GMT -4
feelfree222 said:
Which was…
I replied:
But again I ask, what about the structural engineering firms which don't want government contracts? How does the US Government stop their owners and employees from speaking their minds?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 20:50:11 GMT -4
But again I ask, what about the structural engineering firms which don't want government contracts? How does the US Government stop their owners and employees from speaking their minds? You have probably miss my reply to LunarOrbit I find one.... Mechanical Engineering Professor From Clemson Speaks Up About WTC 'Collapses'
Judy Wood, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, has recently published a website in which she discusses 'The Case for Controlled Demolitionjanedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.htmlShe is member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth"www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 30, 2006 21:15:28 GMT -4
feelfree222
You say that Judy Wood has spoken up. But Mechanical Engineers are not Structural Engineers. They're different fields expertise.
I'd like to hear from people whose expertise is specifically in buildings - that is, Structural Engineers.
|
|