Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: WTC conspiracy theory debunked

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think Bill's point is that while our colleagues (and friends to some) may have come to the conclusions in the report, it is equally plausible that they came to a conclusion that backed the conspiracy theorists, but the report was then changed (by the higher-ups) to debunk the conspiracy theorists since NIST is a government agency.
 
The next step in the cover-up is to eliminate those people involved with the investigation and replace them with robots.  I mean you can't have a bunch of people running around telling everyone how the government altered their report.
-----Original Message-----
From: S. Gordin [mailto:mailbox(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:54 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: WTC conspiracy theory debunked

It is not about accepting the conclusions.  It is about accepting THE conspiracy conclusion.  
This would mean that those who worked with USAR at Ground Zero (including so many respectable SEs) are part of the conspiracy.  I personally know some of these guys.  There is no way.    
 
Steve Gordin SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: WTC conspiracy theory debunked

Meaning that you don't want to automatically give the guy that says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" full faith given that there have been numerous instances of "higher level" non-scientist spin (i.e., revisions) made to materially alter what was originally developed in an more scientifically impartial and scientifically sound manner by government experts.  I don't think Sharon is suggesting who is more credible, just pointing out you need to look behind the report for potential motives and biases, not just blindly accepting the conclusions.
 
 
Regards,
Bill Cain, S.E.
Berkeley CA
 
In a message dated 9/7/2006 1:34:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jcomfort(--nospam--at)ggbse.com writes:
Meaning the conspiracy theorists and their professional and academic analysts (if they have any) are more credible???
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon [mailto:sharon(--nospam--at)arconengineers.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:18 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: WTC conspiracy theory debunked

I believe that he wants us to consider the source.

 

Sharon Robertson, P.E.

Arcon Engineers 
5625 Ruffin Rd, Ste 130 
San Diego, CA  92123

858/503-7854
858/503-7858 fax

Visit us on the web at www.arconengineers.com


From: Josh Comfort [mailto:jcomfort(--nospam--at)ggbse.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:00 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: WTC conspiracy theory debunked

 

I don't get your point?

-----Original Message-----
From: ECVAl3(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:ECVAl3(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:42 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: WTC conspiaracy theory debunked

In a message dated 8/30/2006 4:37:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, rbengrguy(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192500382

Gee, look who runs the NIST

"NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration."

Who would of thunk it!

SHM

ECVAL3(--nospam--at)aol.com