Science A Conspiracy?

[willbill]

Am I alone in believing that Science is one of the biggest conspiracies out there?

God states in the N.T., "I will confound their wisdom with foolishness.." Are we witnessing that verse being fulfilled?

 

[LionL]

No, you are not alone sadly. There are many who deny science whilst sitting at their computers which just appeared by magic.

 

[Edial]

Science is big business.
How can we possibly introduce alternative energies, such as cars running on water, much of Tesla's work when every patent is being bought out by people who run the business of today?
And poor scientists depend on grants to continue their work.

Money talks big time.

 

[willbill]

Let me clean my wording: Am I the only one who believes Science is being used for one of the biggest conspiracy? Don't get excited with my vagueness, LionL. Let's not act like Science itself is something objective - such as mathematics. Science is a method: Observe and report; it relies on a person, whereas math is not dependent to be what it is (and yes, I'm aware it can be applied, clearly). Science is the purest form of Man's works; math is not us - we simply understand it. Thus, there is no need to believe in the nonsense of magic; my computer is controlled-electric impulses reacting to a command (you are free to elaborate on this).

 

[LionL]

my computer is controlled-electric impulses reacting to a command (you are free to elaborate on this).

...and discovered by science then applied to make your computer.
Other examples include the study of anatomy and chemistry and biology (all sciences) which are applied as medicine.

 

[willbill]

*sigh*

 

[Edial]

Let me clean my wording: Am I the only one who believes Science is being used for one of the biggest conspiracy? Don't get excited with my vagueness, LionL. Let's not act like Science itself is something objective - such as mathematics. Science is a method: Observe and report; it relies on a person, whereas math is not dependent to be what it is (and yes, I'm aware it can be applied, clearly). Science is the purest form of Man's works; math is not us - we simply understand it. Thus, there is no need to believe in the nonsense of magic; my computer is controlled-electric impulses reacting to a command (you are free to elaborate on this).

Scientists use math and physics to come to their conclusions.
General population listens to their conclusions.
Are scientists corrupt by using their top shelf knowledge of math and physics and chemistry that most do not have, as a shield, so the regular folks may not double-check their opinion?

Not all, but many scientists (in my opinion) are overly dependent on grants and other financial support of businessmen.
Patents are purchased and science is rolled out gradually to make the most money one can make.
This of course is balanced with the needs and times.

But is there an outright conspiracy where scientists plainly lie?

Of course. There are for example some architects and engineers (not many, very few as compared to the 1000s of others) who say that 911 collapse of buildings (including the steel core mesh in 10 seconds ) is a natural result of fires.
Completely absurd, especially when the 3rd collapsed building was never hit by a plane.

Yes, scientists are used for their opinions, because regular folks simply cannot double-check.
How can you I double check an opinion of a brain surgeon.

 

[Btodd]

Of course. There are for example some architects and engineers (not many, very few as compared to the 1000s of others) who say that 911 collapse of buildings (including the steel core mesh in 10 seconds ) is a natural result of fires.
Completely absurd, especially when the 3rd collapsed building was never hit by a plane.

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that 'very few' architects and engineers say that the collapse of the buildings were a natural result of (the impacts AND) the fires.

Have you taken a poll that I'm not aware of?


Btodd

 

[crjmurray]

Am I alone in believing that Science is one of the biggest conspiracies out there?

God states in the N.T., "I will confound their wisdom with foolishness.." Are we witnessing that verse being fulfilled?

No, unfortunately you're in good company.

 

[bhsmte]

Am I alone in believing that Science is one of the biggest conspiracies out there?

God states in the N.T., "I will confound their wisdom with foolishness.." Are we witnessing that verse being fulfilled?

Your problem is this;

You rely on the theories of science in a multitude of ways every day and every hours of your life, to be more comfortable and healthy and yet, you likely don't realize it. You depend on it more so than you could possibly imagine.

 

[Edial]

I would like to see some evidence for your claim that 'very few' architects and engineers say that the collapse of the buildings were a natural result of (the impacts AND) the fires.

Have you taken a poll that I'm not aware of?


Btodd

I have 2354 architects and engineers to date who say that the building (especially building 7 that was not hit by a plane) collapsed neatly into their footprint in 10 seconds due to fires is a scientific bunk.
http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html

Even AIA (American Institute of Architects) who grovel to NIST voted to reconsider the official story of collapse of Building 7.
https://wikkorg.wordpress.com/2015/...f-architects-to-reconsider-wtc7-911-collapse/
There ARE honest architects and engineers even within AIA and NIST who are saying enough is enough.

Can you give me a list of independent architects and structural engineers who are supporting the scientific fantasy that 911 collapse of 3 buildings in 10 sec neatly in it's footprint is due to office fires?

How about we all stop working in these buildings because office fires could collapse it?

I have 2354 engineers in addition to the ones from within AIA.

What do you have?

 

[Btodd]

I have 2354 architects and engineers to date who say that the building (especially building 7 that was not hit by a plane) collapsed neatly into their footprint in 10 seconds due to fires is a scientific bunk.
http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html

LOL, you have a petition, which is worthless in any scientific sense, filled with a multitude architects and engineers that have no relevant education or experience in the subject matter. Who cares what a software engineer or a landscape architect think about how buildings collapsed? Might as well get a petition of automobile mechanics going, too. The entire reason they started the petition is to counter CONSENSUS.

Even AIA (American Institute of Architects) who grovel to NIST voted to reconsider the official story of collapse of Building 7.
https://wikkorg.wordpress.com/2015/...f-architects-to-reconsider-wtc7-911-collapse/
There ARE honest architects and engineers even within AIA and NIST who are saying enough is enough.

Yeah, that happened in May. The reason it happened is because you only need 50 signatures to get a vote on something like that, and all 50 signatures came from people within the AE911Truth organization.

Did you bother to check how the vote went? Here's how it went, straight from the AE911Truth website:

The final vote against was 3,892 to 160. Walter says he does not believe the percentage of delegates who voted for the resolution reflects the actual number of members who may be questioning how Building 7 came down.

"It's clear that a majority of the people in that room were voting not based on a rational examination of what happened to Building 7 but on how they feel and what they want to believe about what happened on September 11th," he observes. "They were more concerned with the reputation of the AIA and were not willing to commit the AIA to taking a position on anything as controversial as the collapse of Building 7."

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/223-news-media-events-aia-learning-experience.html

LOL. They lost by a 3,892 to 160 vote. That's just over a 96% rejection of their claims. Then, they spun it to assert that the majority that voted against them must have been voting that way for other reasons, because it can't be because our arguments are ridiculous. They called it a 'learning experience'. That's cute.

Your supposed majority is between 3% and 4% at that event alone. Try to play the majority card again.


Btodd

 

[Edial]

LOL, you have a petition, which is worthless in any scientific sense, filled with a multitude architects and engineers that have no relevant education or experience in the subject matter. Who cares what a software engineer or a landscape architect think about how buildings collapsed? Might as well get a petition of automobile mechanics going, too. The entire reason they started the petition is to counter CONSENSUS.




Yeah, that happened in May. The reason it happened is because you only need 50 signatures to get a vote on something like that, and all 50 signatures came from people within the AE911Truth organization.

Did you bother to check how the vote went? Here's how it went, straight from the AE911Truth website:

The final vote against was 3,892 to 160. Walter says he does not believe the percentage of delegates who voted for the resolution reflects the actual number of members who may be questioning how Building 7 came down.

"It's clear that a majority of the people in that room were voting not based on a rational examination of what happened to Building 7 but on how they feel and what they want to believe about what happened on September 11th," he observes. "They were more concerned with the reputation of the AIA and were not willing to commit the AIA to taking a position on anything as controversial as the collapse of Building 7."

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/223-news-media-events-aia-learning-experience.html

LOL. They lost by a 3,892 to 160 vote. That's just over a 96% rejection of their claims. Then, they spun it to assert that the majority that voted against them must have been voting that way for other reasons, because it can't be because our arguments are ridiculous. They called it a 'learning experience'. That's cute.

Your supposed majority is between 3% and 4% at that event alone. Try to play the majority card again.


Btodd

AIA is a puppet of NIST.
It is like going into the belly of the Beast and trying people to speak against the ones who have strong influence on their employment.
AIA engineers spoke out against this taking a great risk assuming that everyone of the AIA is as honest and courageous as they are.

So, do YOU have a list of independent Engineers and Architects who agree with the fantasy of a total collapse of 3 skyscrapers in 10 seconds?
I have 2354 - and many of them are directly related to structural engineering and all the architects.
Yes, they did go to school and have diplomas

 

[Goonie]

AIA is a puppet of NIST.
It is like going into the belly of the Beast and trying people to speak against the ones who have strong influence on their employment.
AIA engineers spoke out against this taking a great risk assuming that everyone of the AIA is as honest and courageous as they are.

So, do YOU have a list of independent Engineers and Architects who agree with the fantasy of a total collapse of 3 skyscrapers in 10 seconds?
I have 2354 - and many of them are directly related to structural engineering and all the architects.
Yes, they did go to school and have diplomas

How many of them are called Steve? Sorry but as Btodd has pointed out this is nothing more than just name gathering In the face of a consensus.

 

[Btodd]

AIA is a puppet of NIST.

Then why did you use the fact that they were holding a vote as a means to legitimize AE911Truth? Because you didn't realize the vote had already been taken, and they rejected AE911Truth's claims by more than a 96% vote.

Then, suddenly...they don't count, because they're just a puppet organization. You not only moved the goalposts, you turned and raced in the opposite direction of the goal. This is the mark of holding an irrational position...when you think the results are going to go your way, AIA is a legitimate organization. When the results don't go your way, they're a sham.

Sorry your claim didn't work out for you.

So, do YOU have a list of independent Engineers and Architects who agree with the fantasy of a total collapse of 3 skyscrapers in 10 seconds?
I have 2354 - and many of them are directly related to structural engineering and all the architects.
Yes, they did go to school and have diplomas

No, because science doesn't work by petition...that's how pseudoscience works. The reason they started a petition is to counter scientific consensus. And it's worth noting that since 9/11, AE911Truth has only managed to get 2354 signatures (many of them by architects and engineers who have no relevant expertise in buildings)...yet in ONE DAY, 3892 members of AIA rejected them.

In one day, at one event, there were more architects that rejected Truther claims than AE911Truth has managed to find support for in almost 14 YEARS.

You tried to play the majority card, and it failed.


Btodd

 

[willbill]

Your problem is this;

You rely on the theories of science in a multitude of ways every day and every hours of your life, to be more comfortable and healthy and yet, you likely don't realize it. You depend on it more so than you could possibly imagine.

Yes, and it's frightening to know such dependency.

 

[willbill]

Your problem is this;

You rely on the theories of science in a multitude of ways every day and every hours of your life, to be more comfortable and healthy and yet, you likely don't realize it. You depend on it more so than you could possibly imagine.

Like I stated, Science in and of itself isn't evil; but that it's the thing used for most evil. I like how Edial was putting it, shifting the blame upon big business that funds a research biasly, no doubt causing certain data to be exposed to manipulation(s). Scientists believe what they do; big business sees big money.

 

[Edial]

Then why did you use the fact that they were holding a vote as a means to legitimize AE911Truth? Because you didn't realize the vote had already been taken, and they rejected AE911Truth's claims by more than a 96% vote.

Then, suddenly...they don't count, because they're just a puppet organization. You not only moved the goalposts, you turned and raced in the opposite direction of the goal. This is the mark of holding an irrational position...when you think the results are going to go your way, AIA is a legitimate organization. When the results don't go your way, they're a sham.

Sorry your claim didn't work out for you.

No, no, no I read the article that I posted.
AIA is a, for a lack of better terms, a "mafia" that demands any one from their ranks to dance to their tune.
You cannot be politically incorrect and publicly disagree with them.
The point was that EVEN among the AIA courageous engineers publicly voiced their opinions and had a hearing.
It is understood that many would be against them while Vito Corleone is watching.

So let's add these 50 structural engineers to the independents.
I wonder is they still work in their field or driving taxi by now.

No, because science doesn't work by petition...that's how pseudoscience works. The reason they started a petition is to counter scientific consensus. And it's worth noting that since 9/11, AE911Truth has only managed to get 2354 signatures (many of them by architects and engineers who have no relevant expertise in buildings)...yet in ONE DAY, 3892 members of AIA rejected them.

In one day, at one event, there were more architects that rejected Truther claims than AE911Truth has managed to find support for in almost 14 YEARS.

You tried to play the majority card, and it failed.


Btodd

Let's get back to my original question - do you have any independent engineer or architect who supports the fantasy of 3 buildings falling perfectly into their footprint in 10 seconds each due to office fires?

Total collapse of 3 (not 1, not 2, but 3) modern skyscrapers due to office fires in SAME DAY ... for the 1st time ever in history of humanity.

And after that NIST did not even recommend how to improve the design of such buildings.
Do you realize this means every modern building is unsafe to work in and needs to be condemned?

Also, do you realize what is a steel core of a skyscraper and the network of steel beams in them.
Do you realize if floors or walls collapse the core would still be there like a tree trunk without branches?

Yes, science is highly corrupted when mafia runs it.

911 is THE proof.

 

[Btodd]

No, no, no I read the article that I posted.

Your article was written prior to the AIA event...so you didn't realize that the vote had already been taken, and was rejected by over 96% of the members at that conference. If the vote had gone your way, you would not be calling AIA a 'mafia' type organization, you would have used them as a credible source. As it turns out, they rejected AE911Truth overwhelmingly, and thus you label them a sham.

Which makes the entire basis of your argument a sham. You decide in advance what architects and engineers should say about the collapses, and if they don't fit your narrative, you add them to the conspiracy. Any source I give, including multiple science papers in legitimate peer-reviewed journals (which you cannot produce, since AE911Truth doesn't do science), you will simply write off as being part of the conspiracy. This is a game on your part. But, but, but...PETITION! Yeah. Nice try.

The point was that EVEN among the AIA courageous engineers publicly voiced their opinions and had a hearing.
It is understood that many would be against them while Vito Corleone is watching.

Those members were from AE911Truth. It takes 50 signatures to have a vote, and that's where the 50 signatures came from.

So let's add these 50 structural engineers to the independents.

What 50 structural engineers? Source, please. You cited 50 signatures, but I would like to see a source that those 50 signatures were all structural engineers. I hope you're not getting the facts wrong again.

Let's get back to my original question - do you have any independent engineer or architect who supports the fantasy of 3 buildings falling perfectly into their footprint in 10 seconds each due to office fires?

First, I will correct you again on leaving out a component of the collapses of the Twin Towers...the impacts of the planes. You know, the point where the collapses started from? You keep conveniently leaving that out every time you mention the collapses. The Twin Towers did not collapse from fire alone...nobody on the 'official story' side says this, so every time you pretend that's the explanation, I have to wonder if you're being intentionally dishonest, or if you don't realize that the collapses were a result of failure of the structure at the impact points because of structural damage, and further weakening by the fires. It's been almost 14 years, so it would be nice if you would get the story correct at this point.

I am happy to give you a list of scientific papers on the collapses that were introduced to legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. What will you say about them? I suspect it will go just like your appeal to AIA...as soon as you see that they don't agree with your conclusion, you'll write them off as being afraid of the bogeyman, or as part of the conspiracy.

What is your definition of 'independent'? It appears to be, 'anyone that tells me what I already believe', particularly if all they have to do is sign a petition, even if they're a landscape architect. "We don't have time (14 years) to write a scientific paper!"

And after that NIST did not even recommend how to improve the design of such buildings.

That's not what NIST does. They aren't an architectural design firm, so your criticism is misplaced. However, other organizations did make recommendations, based on peer-reviewed papers about the collapses. You'll just accuse them of being 'in on it' anyway, so what's new?

Do you realize this means every modern building is unsafe to work in and needs to be condemned?

I covered this above...since you misrepresent why the Twin Towers collapsed, this isn't even a bad joke.

I'm sorry that your appeal to having a majority of architects and engineers on your side failed so badly, but you won't recover from it by misrepresenting the collapses or simply accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you as being too scared to speak up or part of the conspiracy. That's sheer desperation.


Btodd

 

[James Is Back]

How in the world did the 9/11 conspiracy thread creep in here